Let’s try again

PLEASE NOTE: This site has been hacked by our favorite commenter. I apologize for all the damage done yesterday. For a while I’ll be moderating all comments on a one-by-one basis so please bear with me, as comments may not appear for a few hours after you post them.

A new thread.

The last one may have been the strangest ever. To my sockpuppets and mischief-makers, I know how you work.

Possible topics:

Chinese New Year
Apple Iphone mania
Taiwan elections
Alleged torture of a Chinese dissident
Or, of course, the latest Forbes column by….well, you know. (Includes a swipe at James Fallows.)

Or talk about anything else. A gentle reminder: If you try to impersonate other commenters or play games as in the last thread, you’re out forever.


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: 148 Comments

To JR #89:

And as FOARP/Gil points out in #91, that means Taiwanese people want Ma to lead them. But that doesn’t mean Taiwanese people want reunification, even if Ma might personally lean that way. His platform was not based on reunification. And this election was about the choosing of a leader, not a referendum on reunification.

January 24, 2012 @ 3:38 am | Comment

To Augis #93:
the racial bigotry of a certain subset of CCP apologist is truly something fierce…and rather comical.

January 24, 2012 @ 4:03 am | Comment

Racial bigotry is right and natural. It is the deracinated individual that is the creature of indoctrination, a thing of Communism. Any man who would does not feel a visceral unease at his female kinfolk fraternizing with the other is not a man at all. (S)he is an emasculated eunuch that deserves all the scorn that can be summoned.

S.K. Cheung, why do you consider racial nationalists to be apologists for the CCP? Or are your argument merely an ad-hominem so you can lump all your political enemies as, horror of horrors, Nazis of one stripe or another

January 24, 2012 @ 9:38 am | Comment

I’m sorry to say this, but… ROFL at Jing’s comment above. I guess I’m a eunuch then because I have no concern at all whether whites are together with people of other colors, but then I considered myself communist in my teens. The visceral unease just didn’t kick in yet.

January 24, 2012 @ 10:10 am | Comment

Are you a Jew?

January 24, 2012 @ 10:19 am | Comment

Jing, how does “racial nationalism” fit in with a multi- ethnic state such as China?

January 24, 2012 @ 10:29 am | Comment

Jing, you’re being unusually vile today. I am leaving it there for everyone to see. And as a Jew, I’d like to tell you, with affection, to go to hell.

January 24, 2012 @ 10:33 am | Comment

Don’t worry, Jing. One day you’ll get laid.

January 24, 2012 @ 10:33 am | Comment


Man, I don’t think I’ve ever read a comment written by someone more in need of a blowjob before in my life 😀

Jing, you’re priceless! Keep writing – something might find you worth a shag 😉

January 24, 2012 @ 10:41 am | Comment

Chingis, simply put, it doesn’t. The existing Chinese state is a Bolshevik abomination. China should be a unitary state for one race, the Han race. Instead the worthless Communists propagate Lies for their imperial ambitions (I will argue against empire at another date). It denigrates Han patriots and praises inferior barbarian savages as heroes. What kind of Chinese state praises murderous aliens like Genghis Khan as a hero? A self-negating Communist one.

This isn’t even the worse of their crimes. The deliberate murder of beautiful Han children in the name of population control while allowing so-called “minorities” to propagate to their heart’s content is outright genocide. While the race-traitors of the West are content to innundate their urheimat with unwashed third world hordes, the CCP has chosen to one up them by deliberately murdering their own race. The ostensibly “Chinese” Communist Party has legally declared than a Chinese life is worth less than that of a barbarian.

January 24, 2012 @ 10:52 am | Comment

@ Richard. Did you take down a particularly vile comment some hours ago?

I think Jing is a bit out of step with general attitudes in China. Folk there don’t get particularly exercised by same sex attractions, possibly because they have little understanding how sexuality operates over the 100%, and probably because they have more important things to contend with.

Anti-gay rants usually point to repressed sexual indentity issues.
I will hazard an online diagnosis: self hatred/extreme denial due to those moments of past same sex weakness.

Possibly late stage syphilis.

January 24, 2012 @ 11:52 am | Comment

KT, no, I did not take down any of Jing’s comments.

January 24, 2012 @ 11:58 am | Comment

#111 Yes, terminal syphilis beyond penicillin. I will stake my professional reputation on it.

January 24, 2012 @ 11:59 am | Comment

No, it wasn’t a Jing comment if I recall, but it was all about enviscerating womem and it was up approx 10 or 11 hours ago. Lots of bold print and truly psychotic.

Pretty sure it was posted in Michael Turtons name, but it certainly wasn’t him.

I just about fell off the chair.

January 24, 2012 @ 12:08 pm | Comment

KT, that was Wayne aka Mongol Warrior usurping Michael Turton’s identity. That problem has been fixed. Now, if only Wayne could be fixed it would be a gift to humanity.

January 24, 2012 @ 12:10 pm | Comment

A day to late but Happy Chinese New Year!!!

January 24, 2012 @ 12:42 pm | Comment

To Jing,
sadly, I’ve come across a lot of morons in my time. But you are something else. Where to begin…

It is true that racial bigots and CCP apologists are not necessarily one and the same. However, in my travels, racial bigots have tended to be CCP apologists, although it is also true that not all CCP apologists are racial bigots. It does seem, though, that my pragmatism is premature when applied to your case. You do seem to come across as a racial bigot who is not a CCP apologist. I stand corrected, and will modify my presumptions accordingly.

I can’t say if racial bigotry is natural or not. It would require sociological twin studies where one subject is immersed in a uniform racial environment, whereas the other is exposed to interracial interactions. That would be the only way to know if racial bigotry, should it develop, is the result of nature or nurture. On a practical level, I don’t see how such a study could be conducted, especially in our era.

I can say that racial bigotry is wrong. As MLK said, people should be judged not by the colour of their skin, but by the content of their character. To me, the principle extends to race. For instance, I definitely wouldn’t want my children to associate with a flaming idiot like you, and that has nothing to do with your race, or skin colour.

I will say, however, that racial bigots like you also have a weird misogynistic streak. You seem to share that with the infamous Wayne. You should know (and if your parents did their job, then they should have taught you and you should have learned) that women are not chattel or “man’s” possessions. They are free to choose their mate as they please. If a woman of your race marries outside of it, that is neither your concern, nor your problem. That you would take personal umbrage to such an event speaks clearly of your mental imbalance, though I would hesitate to speculate as precisely as KT has as to its underlying cause (though I will say that catching an STD requires having sex, and if you come across IRL in any way like you do online, it would take one incredibly desperate woman to succumb to your “charms”).

I disapprove of invoking Nazis, because it diminishes their evil when there has never been a parallel. However, your eugenics philosophy would not be out of step with their general insanity. I am happy to recognize that even the most fervent of CCP apologist don’t typically espouse the type of drivel you spew on a regular basis. So you do deserve a category unto yourself. Whereas “CCP apologist” seems to be a fairly well-populated cohort, I truly hope yours is a rather lonely one.

January 24, 2012 @ 2:33 pm | Comment

Okay, the only one that is not me is #87. Our Dear Friend is hacking again. How silly.

What cracks me up is that Jing’s comments are NOT hacked. Wowzer.

January 24, 2012 @ 2:41 pm | Comment

Lisa, there is a very easy fix I implemented to stop MW. He can only do this once per commenter, then I can stop him. And yes, that really is Jing saying that stuff.

January 24, 2012 @ 11:48 pm | Comment

Oh, and what @SK said. I can’t tell you how many of these “nationalist” arguments seem to be at their core, “They’re f***ing our wimmins!” Newsflash: they don’t belong to you.

January 25, 2012 @ 3:12 am | Comment

Sometimes, I think that “trolls” are just little furry creatures.
They just shouldn’t be exposed to bright light, get wet and fed after midnight – otherwise they turn into “hackers”.

January 25, 2012 @ 4:51 am | Comment

S.K. Cheung the fundamental flaw of you and your kind is that your knowledge is incomplete. All that you think you know is merely received wisdom dictated by those with the will to power. Most people are simply not capable using their minds to piece together relevant facts together into a logical whole, either from simple lack of intelligence or intellectual chasms that they are incapable of bridging by themselves.

It is natural to be biased towards your co-ethnics. You do not need double blind twin studies to prove it, though a study has been done which showed that even infants will react more positively to their co ethnics than to obvious racial aliens in the form of playing with and sharing of toys. That you think such experiments cannot be conducted at all in this era shows that even you the overwhelming thought prison that individuals are ensconced in.

You argument that bigotry and discrimination are wrong flies in the face of what it means to be human and the evolution of our thinking. To discriminate is to make a deliberate choice of what is advantageous to us as individuals based on a limited array of information. It is a choice we make hundreds or thousands of times a day both consciously and subconsciously. The beauty of human thinking and what separates us from machines is that we are able to think heuristically and make quick decisions that are much more likely to be the correct than not.

You argue that individuals should be judged by the content of their character, yet no one is capable of making a tabula rasa assessment of everyone they meet nor do they have the time and inclination to do so. Instead they draw upon existing knowledge and biases and decide rather quickly with person A is friendly or person B is trustworthy.

Your regurgitation of King is another risible condemnation of what is wrong with Leftist thinking. The character of a great many individual blacks are unfortunately sadly lacking. King himself was a plagiarist, a Communist agent provocateur, a whore monger (with a taste for white women) that has been beatified as the patron saint of White Guilt by Jewish power. I say that rather than judge a man merely by his character, to judge him by his legacy. What King has left America is a state that is openly hostile to its original inhabitants and is actively engaged in its destitution. Commit a violent and savage crime; you’re excused because you are black. A poor student of mediocre ability, ; here is a college admission with a taxpayer back scholarship because you are black. An incompetent worker and shiftless worker; can’t fire you because you are black. The new King memorial in D.C. should be emblazoned with the words “Martin Luther, King of Kings. Behold my works ye whitey and despair!”

As to my alleged misogyny, you could not be more wrong. I love and respect women, but I also realize that they are different than men. That their responsibilities in life differ from that of men. That ultimately their reasoning and rationality is lesser than that of men. The role of a woman is to raise a family that will succeed in passing down the biological and cultural legacies of her ancestors. This has been the evolutionary imperative since the dawn of human history. To do otherwise is to fail at womanhood.

The problem today is all of the feminist garbage peddled by shrill barren Jewesses that demands to be the equals of men while declining the duties of men and maintaining the privileges of women. This has created a breed of entitled harridans that demand “tolerance” and “acceptance” of their dysfunctions, to them I give no quarter. It is this feminine irrationality that has so poisoned the discourse of our time. Cheung and no fewer than two other erstwhile men have chosen to attack me not through my arguments but through the petty slanders of womenfolk. I have no interest in mating with you, yet you have an inordinate obsession with my relationships. I was right to judge you all eunuchs because your words are not those of real men, but a gaggle of clucking castrati that liberalism creates.

January 25, 2012 @ 5:59 am | Comment

The problem with you, Jing, is perhaps that you were raised (and poorly at that) in a different era, but rather than evolve with the times, you have chosen to remain on the outdated side of the generational divide. That, of course, is your prerogative, just as it is mine to point it out to you in no uncertain terms. And do that I most definitely will. The “facts” you have supposedly cobbled together are actually not facts, but merely prejudices that you are too ignorant, possibly inherently, to recognize. And again, consider it my Good Samaritan deed for the day to outline those for you as well. To begin, you should realize that it is 2012, and not 1952, which appears to be about where your “thinking” has remained frozen in time. You might make for an interesting sociological specimen (heck, perhaps even anthropological). But one shouldn’t conflate your verbiage with intelligence; I certainly don’t.

For starters, you have your scientific evidence all wrong. Studies in fact have shown that babies will play and interact with babies of ANY colour, be they similar or different to their own. Racial bigotry is far more likely to be taught (or learned) (though to be fair I can’t say which is more likely; perhaps you can enlighten us since you appear experienced in the area) than to be innate. Affinity towards “co-ethnics”, as you call it, is a product of socialization. This is perhaps where your parents began to fail you, though it seems not to have ended there.

I agree that humans make choices, conscious or otherwise. And yes, sometimes choices are made in the absence of complete information. But that is not the point. You seem to make choices based solely on race, and on your discrimination against any and all races beside your own. That has nothing to do with evolution, or human thinking (which you may or may not be capable of). That is morally wrong, pure and simple. Clearly, we don’t share the same set of morals, which is just as well, because your set is abhorrent to me. To each his own.

People absolutely should be judged by the content of their character. If I choose to associate with someone, it is because their character is appealing, or at the very least acceptable, to me. I don’t choose based on their skin colour or race. I guess you do. On the other hand, if it’s just some guy walking down the street, you are correct that I would not have the time or inclination to judge his character. But such judgement is also quite unnecessary. Whether he is friendly or not, and trustworthy or not, is of no consequence to me. So once again, your point is irrelevant.

Your rant against MLK is pointless. You say you shouldn’t judge a guy by his character, but you suggest that he be judged by his legacy?!? How the hell do you do that a priori? How would you determine if someone is friendly, or trustworthy, on the basis of his “legacy”? Your argument is non-sensical. You seem to have a problem with affirmative action. Unfortunately, you appear to have allowed your anger to cloud your reasoning, which was of mediocre grade to begin with. But you have made quite clear again the depth of your racist attitudes, which really required no further affirmation.

Your little bit about women merely confirms your misogyny, and the fact that you are a product of the 1950s whose psyche hasn’t evolved since. You “love and respect women”, IFF they are barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen, I suspect. It is laughable that someone like you still walks the earth in 2012, and does put a small dent in Darwin’s theories. Suffice it to say that I sympathize with the women you supposedly love and respect. They deserve better. That you consider women to be little more than a walking uterus is quite emblematic of your overall views of your fellow man (ie archaic, detached, and deeply disrespectful).

Of this you can be sure. I can’t imagine anyone would desire your “tolerance” or “acceptance”, such as it were. You need to escape your closeted existence, and undergo some accelerated evolution to prevent more of the present from passing you by. Of course, to do so is entirely your prerogative, since the status quo for you actually serves as good entertainment and fodder for those around you.

January 25, 2012 @ 9:09 am | Comment


Nice essay. I’m sure you will take it as a serious intellectual failing that all I have to say to it is “fuck off and get cancer.”

January 25, 2012 @ 9:13 am | Comment

To Mac,
I don’t think that’s necessary. Jing is clearly a knuckle-dragging Neanderthal, but his could serve as a good family cohort for longitudinal sociological evaluation. The key subjects will be his kids. They are clearly burdened with questionable genetic material, not to mention highly objectionable parental resources. But they will also be socialized in our enlightened times. It will be informative to see how the kids turn out in adulthood. If they have the misfortune of turning out like jing, that would reflect upon the influence of nature. But if they actually end up as well adjusted and non bigoted individuals, then that’s a shot for nurture. Should be a fun observational cases study.

January 25, 2012 @ 9:59 am | Comment

MAC, please don’t talk like that. It only makes this site look bad. But I know what you mean.

January 25, 2012 @ 10:05 am | Comment


Children readily discriminate and it comes naturally. Even a stilted social experiment organized by Marxists comes to this conclusion though naturally they advocate more propaganda and diversity programming for recalcitrant 5 year old counter-revolutionaries.

My “rant” against MLK was simple unvarnished truth. Nothing I said about him is unknown though the efforts to sanctify him have lead to much of it being suppressed.

You speak grandly of morals, I speak of survival, though I doubt in practice we are much different. There is a vast difference between declared preference and revealed preference. I suspect you will be singing an entirely different tune if you ever had the misfortune of living in a majority black neighborhood or had your children attend a public school with the same demographics. Diversity and equality is for the plebes; the little people that cannot afford the outrageously high home prices that keep the undesirables away.

January 25, 2012 @ 10:47 am | Comment

Huh, Jing, I’d match my IQ against yours any time. And my accomplishments.

And I live in a multicultural neighborhood, and I treasure that.

January 25, 2012 @ 12:09 pm | Comment

And newsflash, buddy: you don’t really “treasure” women if you refuse to grant them equal status and personhood to you. You condescend to them. At best.

January 25, 2012 @ 12:12 pm | Comment

I speak of survival

That is the comment of someone speaking through their arse.

January 25, 2012 @ 12:16 pm | Comment

To Jing:


“Children are not color blind; they recognize differences. Children develop racial attitudes based on their observations of their parents and society in general.”

What comes naturally is that children even as young as 6 months of age recognize visual differences. However, the tendency to affix judgements to those differences comes later, depending on what the parents have or haven’t done in guiding them. So children readily distinguish, and that does in fact come naturally. But “discriminate”? That comes later, and you can hang that on the parents.

And what’s with the Marxist-this, and counter-revolutionary-that? You need to lighten up on whatever it is you’re smoking.

I always chuckle when someone claims to have the “simple unvarnished truth”. So thanks for that. And your truth is actually mostly bullshit. It’s ironic that most ardent CCP apologist types are frequently pointing to the disparity of blacks in the US prison population, so you need to compare notes with them to reconcile your misguided impression that “Commit a violent and savage crime; you’re excused because you are black”. Affirmative action means in part that black people might benefit in the hiring process; but it certainly doesn’t preclude termination for cause, as you would erroneously suggest by saying “can’t fire you because you are black.” There is preferential treatment in college admissions. They are arguably given an easier path through the door. But to make it out the other side with a degree, they still need to make the grade, regardless of colour.

And it never ceases to amuse me when you guys try to suggest that such and such is “suppressed”, but you just so happen to know about it. Amazing. You must be tapped into the high and mighty to have access to such exclusive and previously undisclosed information, and it’s so good of you to share it with us. Either that, or you can add delusions to your list of ailments.

“survival”? Please. Spare me the histrionics and the emotive violin concerto. You don’t need to be a racist bigot to survive. To suggest that a non-black person living in a predominantly black neighbourhood would improve his chances of survival by hating on black people for no other reason than their skin colour represents fatal stupidity. Are black people necessarily saints? Of course not. But neither are they necessarily evil. And that’s the whole point. 6-month olds can make visual distinctions based on colour differences alone. Adults should be able to make judgements about people based on something more substantial. You should not be proud of that fact that, in this arena, you are still functioning at the level of someone who crawls around in short pants.

January 25, 2012 @ 2:47 pm | Comment

Jing. This eugenics stuff you are ranting about just doesn’t fly these days, and if it did, individuals with siphillic disorders are usually the first to be shipped off to camps.

January 25, 2012 @ 8:46 pm | Comment

Neither individuals nor collectives are “great” because they think they are – and as a rule, people who are unable take a critical look at themselves once in a while without breaking into tears are actually very small people. One of their characteristics is that they feel continuously challenged (especially by people who outperform them), and get chronically frustrated.

January 26, 2012 @ 12:38 am | Comment

The existing Chinese state is a Bolshevik abomination. China should be a unitary state for one race, the Han race…. I will argue against empire at another date.

LOL, take this to its logical conclusion and you will have to dismantle the ex-Qing empire, current PRC. China will be a lot smaller. I must say it’s not a line of thought that one associates with Han nationalists.

You’d better watch out, the fenqing will call you a race traitor and leave smelly stuff on your doorstep.

January 26, 2012 @ 5:20 am | Comment

Comment 122


OK, just going to read it again…..


Oh dear, howls of derisive laughter in Aotearoa! I love it when people write stuff that makes them look so stupid, all the while thinking they’re coming across as intellectually superior.

Jing, stick with small sentences – that’ll stop your brain from aching 😉

January 26, 2012 @ 5:31 am | Comment

“Most people are simply not capable using their minds to piece together relevant facts together into a logical whole, either from simple lack of intelligence or intellectual chasms that they are incapable of bridging by themselves.”

And then you go on to prove it 😀

Oh Jing, you’re too funny! If this is comedy, you’re wasted here! You need a larger audience!

January 26, 2012 @ 5:36 am | Comment

I actually think Jing’s engaging in performance art. Well done!

January 26, 2012 @ 5:49 am | Comment

@Other Lisa –

“newsflash, buddy: you don’t really “treasure” women if you refuse to grant them equal status and personhood to you.”

Why would anyone want to punish women by lowering them to Jing’s status and personhood?

January 26, 2012 @ 5:51 am | Comment

Also, now that Jing (like most of his intellectual forebears) has raised the topic of Jews I’d like to ask a question:

If such a tiny minority never managed to establish an empire or do any of the other things the “great” nations did, yet nonetheless are thought to have such power that they threaten other races who they supposedly manipulate behind the scenes, then aren’t they by definition the most superior race in the world? If so, then as a rational racist aren’t you interested in obtaining some of their genetic potential for your children?

Of course this is hypothetical because there may not be any Jewish women in the world desperate enough to consider having a child with someone of Jing’s ilk. I’m still curious however, Jing: if Darwinian survival is your goal and the only criterion that matters, wouldn’t it be a benefit to your children (if you have any) to have a touch of the “Jew brush”?

January 26, 2012 @ 5:56 am | Comment

@Gil, well, there’s that.

January 26, 2012 @ 7:41 am | Comment

Unrelated question:

Why don’t more dissidents who find it necessary to flee China go to Taiwan? Not having to worry about the language barrier is a big plus. More to the point, I worry that dissidents who move to the West will lose their street cred back in China, since they can be portrayed as traitors who have fallen in with foreign power brokers. Living in Taiwan, it would be harder to spread that story about them. I was thinking about this seeing the news about Yu Jie’s press conference in Washington. I can see where Taiwan might think it’s a little too dangerous to house an active dissident organization, like the China Democracy Party, but surely they would give asylum to someone like Yu Jie.

I’m curious: does a Mainland Chinese person who resides in Taiwan automatically get the right to vote in ROC elections? I would think that, legally, Taipei would have to treat them as ROC citizens.

By the way, Taiwan in the 50s and 60s has an interesting and little-told history as a “third pole” in the Tibet-China conflict. They put some effort into making themselves a continuing player in the region, although in the end their efforts added up to a footnote: basically Chiang Kai-shek was patron to a handful of losers in Tibetan exile politics. The 10th Panchen Lama (or rather, his coterie, since he was a child at the time) had been an ROC ally before the revolution and seriously considered fleeing to Taiwan in 1949; if that had happened, the KMT’s position in Tibet might have been a little stronger. The Panchen Lama no doubt came to regret this decision as well, since he was imprisoned for years by the PRC and most of his associates were killed.

January 26, 2012 @ 8:58 am | Comment

Otto, part of fleeing involves getting asylum or refuge. Could be that Taiwan is more concerned with $ through trade and not needling some neighbour of theirs too much. I dare say the US wouldn’t want too much controversy in that area either – easier to accept Chinese dissidents in the US mainland than risk a war of words that could escalate in the Taiwan Straits.

January 26, 2012 @ 9:29 am | Comment

Since Jews and Taiwan have been thrown into the pot, shall I mix in a bit of Tibet?

January 26, 2012 @ 9:34 am | Comment

LOL. Must be easy being a CCP government spokesperson. When in doubt, blame it on “separatist propaganda”. And, oh yeah, the government in exile made these monks set themselves alight. It must be liberating in some ways when one can speak without the constraints of logic and common sense, such as with these CCP talking heads.

January 26, 2012 @ 10:24 am | Comment

I heard a rumour that the CCP has camcorder footage of the Dalai Lama personally spraying down an immolator, who is being restrained on one side by an aristocrat and on the other by a British imperialist, with lighter fluid. However, they are refusing to release the footage in order to avoid damaging the reputation of China’s first Nobel Peace Prize winner and hurting the sensitive feelings of the patriotic Tibetan monks.

January 26, 2012 @ 4:14 pm | Comment

Off topic (to the extent there Is a topic) but http://www.nbr.org/publications/element.aspx?id=571

January 27, 2012 @ 6:06 am | Comment

Its a nation state zero-sum game, and any other spin on international relations is a lot of hippie utopianism. After a year or so of Beijing blow-hardism on the international stage, they will cut a very low profile this year. All sorts of economic and social rodents nibbling away at the acreage bank home in Sino-land.

January 27, 2012 @ 7:57 am | Comment

I am sending this thread to Thread Heaven.

January 28, 2012 @ 6:22 am | Comment

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.