Having tried, but failed, to stop North Korea from launching its rocket, I prayed that the China-India war would not break out as there was nothing more I could do. Fortunately, my prayer was answered. If I had to guess, the Obama administration must have applied some pressure on President Hu Jintao. And if they did so, it must have been because I had spilled the beans on China's war plan.
On Tuesday April 14, President Obama gave another economic speech at Georgetown University. He made five points in his speech, signaling that he would back me as the 5th generation of Chinese leadership.
Frankly, I was very much unimpressed with his speech at the time. David Brook's column on April 21 probably best summarized my feelings. Yes, Mr. Obama said many words that resonated with me in his speech. But his recent actions did not match his words, as I alluded to before. And his support of Hu made me doubt his sincerity even more.
Politically, to be the 5th generation of Chinese leadership is the least favorable option for me. (Personally, of course, to be the 5th generation of Chinese leadership gives me room to seek readdress from the governments on some of wrongs inflicted on me.) Throughout its history, China has never been a democracy. To be the leader-in-waiting is perhaps to be in the most dangerous position in authoritarian China. Here, if you lose a democratic election, you merely lose an office. Whilst in China, if you lose a power struggle, you could lose your life. (But I have to say that Chinese politics has become much less brutal in recent decades. Still, the fundamentals remain the same.) And I know that I do not have the necessary skills to succeed in politics. -- That's probably why my father urged me to stay away from politics in his dying wishes. -- This is especially true when I am compared to Hu Jintao, who is a particularly formidable opponent. The mere facts that he had come out of years of leader-in-waiting with a strong faction and then succeeded in gradually wrestling power away from his predecessor are the obvious proofs.
My only political strength is in my desire for China's democratization. If I could be successful in leading China in that direction, it could potentially change the game. And it appeared that my proposal (part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4 so far) for China's democratization had been well received in China, at least in some corners. I genuinely believe that China's democratization is not only good for China, but also for the world.
I decided that I should try first to be considered for the 4th generation of Chinese leadership. That's why I returned two books on Thursday April 16, signaling my challenge to Hu Jintao. (Because I did not want to completely lose my personal cause, and with the B.C. provincial election under way, I sent an email to a local newspaper on Wednesday night in a desperate attempt to get on the news here. I checked my email many times the next day before I left for the library.)
Unfortunately, nothing happened. I was resigned to borrowing one more book to bring the total number to five. However, a CBC documentary on Saturday morning changed my mind.
Now, I know that CBC has never been friendly to me ever since before I became a "public" figure. If my memories are correct, CBC Radio sent me "personal" bullying messages even before I finished writing my first report. (Indeed, in the morning of Friday April 17, CBC Radio's hourly news had a piece from China about its potential social instability. It was obviously intended to influence the Canadian public to put the blame on me if something disorderly did happen as a result of my changing the number of books on loan to 4 the day before.) However, this documentary was particularly biased, distasteful, and indeed, dishonest.
The documentary is centered around the aftermath of last year's Sichuan earthquake. Throughout, it cast the Chinese government in a negative light. Surprisingly, Hu Jintao, who is the head of CCP and who wants to continue the authoritarian regime, was nowhere to be seen in the whole film, not even in a picture frame. (Correction after watching the documentary again online: Hu did appear in the film, just in a flash moment of Olympic-related pageantry.) At the mean time, it called Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao a "communist dictator". This after I had written before that Mr. Wen was the first to open to democratization among top leaders in China. (I should add that it took tremendous courage to do so for someone inside the present system. And CBC may not have known this: Premier Wen is one of the few top leaders without his own faction.) Other biases were too many to list. I'll just give an example of subtle distortion: A resident in the quake zone was filmed to say in Chinese that the government told them to "start anew" or "start over" with their lives. Yet on the TV screen, the translation became "to get on with your lives".
Apparently, CBC had already decided which side to support, Hu Jintao or me. Why? The only reason I could think of was that CBC figured that that was Mr. Obama's position. (I would suggest that this had nothing to do with President Obama's personal popularity, given its consistent position with respect to my file throughout the Bush years.) And CBC saw that I would be brought out by the Chinese government because of the latest "endorsement" by Mr. Obama, they wanted to tell the Canadian public in advance that I was merely a product of "communist propaganda", as the central theme of documentary itself suggested.
As I said, my only political strength is my advocacy for China's democratization and the accompanying proposal. Even with whatever support I could garner from within China, my strength depends heavily on the support of Canadian and American public. For that to happen, the media here can not intentionally be against me. Without public support, it would be foolish of me to venture into Chinese politics. And if the Canadian media, which, as I learned over the years, is essentially liberal like the CBC, thought that Mr. Obama was not genuinely in support of me, I doubted even more of my choice.
That's why I borrowed two more books to bring the total number to 6 later that day. I was quite relieved after I came back from the library in the afternoon, certain that I had made the right decision. I even took a walk in the park nearby. It was in the evening that I realized that others had seen number 3 in the 6 books due to the fact that three of the books were written by the same author, Amitai Etzioni. (As I said before, "if I want to signal numbers within a total number, I would go to different libraries".) Bothered by the perception, I decided to go to the library again to fix the "problem". My plan was to switch one of the Etzioni books with a new one.
Carnegie reading room was the only VPL branch that opened on Saturday night. In order to avoid creating the perception of another number within the 6 books, I decided to limit my borrowing choice to social science books. Carnegie is a very small branch and I found that I did not have many books to choose from. In the end, just to be safe, I picked The Unconscious Civilization by John Ralston Saul, a book I had mentioned in my blogs before. It was after I had come back from the library that I realized that I had unwittingly created an even stronger perception of number 3: The six books on loan now consisted of 3 books by American authors and 3 by Canadian authors. (Looking back, I can see that the chance that I would escape from this perception was very slim that night because Carnegie not only has a limited collection of social science books, it also has a very high concentration of Canadian contents. Indeed, the four or five books I chose to replace one of Etzioni's books were all written by Canadians.)
Needless to say, I was extremely frustrated. Believe me, it took deliberate and conscious efforts to avoid such perceptions because there were so many unexpected ways you could separate a bunch of books into different groups. Overall, I found my book borrowing activities had become less and less enjoyable. For one thing, I needed to be careful lest I offended anyone with my reading list. And I had hoped that my reading list would help me to send out my political and philosophical messages, given my poor writing skills. Yet, judging by the almost non-existent response I got, it often appeared to me that I was all alone in my endeavor.
That's why I decided to return all the books the next day and instead borrowed 6 movie DVDs. (I needed some entertainment.) I spent a good hour or so in choosing the 6 DVDs, again to make sure nobody could see any numbers there other than the number 6. It was during the checkout, however, that I was told that I could only borrow 5 DVDs at a maximum. Feeling a profound sense of irony, I returned the 5 DVDs a few minutes later and got a copy of VPL's Loan Periods, Limits, Fines and Charges from library staff. With this piece of paper in hand, I borrowed 6 book CDs, again with careful selection.
It was Norman Spector's column on the Globe on Tuesday April 21 that changed my mind again. Reading his column, I realized that even though I was very sure that the common philosophy I advocated for both China and America was the right one, it took tremendous political courage for Mr. Obama to even try to bring the American public along. Obviously he, like every other politician, was not immune to political expediency. But I hope his backing of me and my political philosophy is genuine. Besides, I am really tired now.
With these considerations, I returned one CD to the library yesterday, signaling my candidacy for the 5th generation of Chinese leadership.
Indeed, it's not easy to be a politician. And I can only hope that everyone will throw their support to make me a strong 5th generation of Chinese leadership.
Update (20090428):
I got a glimpse of President Obama’s weekly radio address on TV on Saturday. Frankly, I had not expected a significant change of attitude from him after my above blog. That’s why I switched the 5 books CDs to 5 books without even watching his address in its entirety. It was only after I had watched the entire video and read the text of his address on Saturday night that I realized that he was now backing me as the 4th generation of Chinese leadership.
An improvement, certainly. Perhaps even what I had hoped for subconsciously. -- The next day, I went to VPL to make the total number of books on loan 4.
Yesterday, as I sat down and looked at the situation, I asked myself: “Is this what it boils down to, a contest between Hu Jintao and me for the top job in China?” Frankly, I do not even know what the job entails on a daily basis. I accepted President Obama’s “improved endorsement” probably more to get out of my miserable situation than anything else.
If I had an agenda, it was to democratize China with a political philosophy that could simultaneously serve as an ideal platform for dialogue and cooperation between China and United States. I know that my democratization proposal (part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4 so far) had been well received in China, at least at some corners. Mr. Obama’s “improved endorsement” of me in his Saturday address was made after I had posted my above blog. It probably should be viewed as an endorsement of the common philosophy I advocated more than anything else.
If that’s the case, I don’t need to go back to China as long as both peoples are informed of this common philosophy. China can start the preparation for political reform now. At the same time, both countries can start laying the foundation for a stable and durable partnership.
These two things - proposing democratization in China and bringing a pair of potential rivals to the path of dialogue and cooperation - would be my contributions to the world. Considering that, precisely because of these back in February, I was regarded to potentially be the 3rd generation of Chinese leadership by my supporters in China with the acknowledgement of the Obama administration, I returned one book to VPL last night.
President Hu can keep his job in China. I just wish he will grow a spine for the rest of his term. At the mean time, I could seek my readdress here and if I am lucky, I could probably have a chance to work for Mr. Warren Buffett - even if it’s just for a short period of time - before I go back to China.
That would be something, eh?
Update (20090501):
Apparently, not everyone was happy with my above proposal. I borrowed one more book yesterday to bring the total back to four.
But if am going to replace Hu Jintao, shouldn’t I at least get compensated for the atrocious wrongs inflicted upon me first?
Update (20090502):
That's it. I've had enough. I'm out.
Six books on loan today.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Wednesday, April 08, 2009
China’s democratization and its impact on the world (4)
When I first realized that the Chinese government was very likely considering me for a leadership position back in the summer of 2005, the first impression of the Chinese government that came to my mind was the rampant corruption, as reflected in my blogs. Indeed, to eradicate corruption has been my primary consideration to advocate political reform in China.
When President Barack Obama decided to confront China on his first day in office, he also implied - in his inauguration speech - that corruption in Chinese government was one of his justifications. Mr. Obama must have known that "power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely" and that the surest way to tackle corruption in a government like China's is to change its current authoritarian regime and build a democratic system.
So why does Mr. Obama favor Hu Jintao instead of me for leadership in China, as can be seen as lately as in the G20 Summit in London? Alas, Mr. Obama's real intent is not at all China's democratization, or even its improved governance. What Mr. Obama, just like his predecessor George W. Bush, really wants is a poodle in Mr. Hu to serve his political interest. By mentioning corruption in his inauguration speech, Mr. Obama dived into Chinese politics and signaled his support for Mr. Hu.
(As I revealed in my previous blogs, one way Mr. Hu has been able to wrestle political power away from his predecessor was to wage anti-corruption campaigns as many people in the previous administration were more or less corrupt in a political system without effective check-and-balance. -- Another way for Mr. Hu to grow his political power was to gradually gain control over the military. One military exercise in early fall of 2006 was conducted for this purpose, I believe.)
And here comes a counter-intuitive point about China's democratization: The country that will be most impacted from China's democratization is not going to be one of its neighbors in East Asia. It's going to be United States of America. A democratic government in Beijing will necessarily reflect the central-left character of the whole population. The chances are that such a government will not blindly follow Washington's marching orders.
Of course, implicit in this point is the recognition that U.S. and China are the two most important countries in this century. Already, there have been talks of a G2 in the media. So, how will a G2 work in the context of a democratizing China?
When President Barack Obama decided to confront China on his first day in office, he also implied - in his inauguration speech - that corruption in Chinese government was one of his justifications. Mr. Obama must have known that "power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely" and that the surest way to tackle corruption in a government like China's is to change its current authoritarian regime and build a democratic system.
So why does Mr. Obama favor Hu Jintao instead of me for leadership in China, as can be seen as lately as in the G20 Summit in London? Alas, Mr. Obama's real intent is not at all China's democratization, or even its improved governance. What Mr. Obama, just like his predecessor George W. Bush, really wants is a poodle in Mr. Hu to serve his political interest. By mentioning corruption in his inauguration speech, Mr. Obama dived into Chinese politics and signaled his support for Mr. Hu.
(As I revealed in my previous blogs, one way Mr. Hu has been able to wrestle political power away from his predecessor was to wage anti-corruption campaigns as many people in the previous administration were more or less corrupt in a political system without effective check-and-balance. -- Another way for Mr. Hu to grow his political power was to gradually gain control over the military. One military exercise in early fall of 2006 was conducted for this purpose, I believe.)
And here comes a counter-intuitive point about China's democratization: The country that will be most impacted from China's democratization is not going to be one of its neighbors in East Asia. It's going to be United States of America. A democratic government in Beijing will necessarily reflect the central-left character of the whole population. The chances are that such a government will not blindly follow Washington's marching orders.
Of course, implicit in this point is the recognition that U.S. and China are the two most important countries in this century. Already, there have been talks of a G2 in the media. So, how will a G2 work in the context of a democratizing China?
Sunday, April 05, 2009
I am disappointed
Having spilled the beans about China's plan to start an imminent war with India just before the G20 Summit in London, I borrowed one book from VPL later that day because I did not want to lose my personal cause. And I had hoped that I would be heard this time.
In the evening of Friday April 3, I again returned a book to VPL, signaling my willingness to be considered to replace Hu Jintao. I did so because I wanted to stop North Korea from launching its rocket. For North Korea, launching such a powerful rocket had to have the backing of Beijing, its traditional ally in the region. In fact, I believe that allowing North Korea to launch such a rocket at this time was connected to Beijing's plan to start a war with India.
I believe the North Korea knew me as a potential leader for China. That they did not launch its rocket on Saturday had given me hope initially.
As such, I was extremely disappointed at hearing the news of the launch last night. Not that the launch itself was not successful technically, it apparently was. I am disappointed that North Korea went ahead anyways. Apparently, Hu Jintao is still in charge in Beijing.
I borrowed two more books from VPL today.
In the evening of Friday April 3, I again returned a book to VPL, signaling my willingness to be considered to replace Hu Jintao. I did so because I wanted to stop North Korea from launching its rocket. For North Korea, launching such a powerful rocket had to have the backing of Beijing, its traditional ally in the region. In fact, I believe that allowing North Korea to launch such a rocket at this time was connected to Beijing's plan to start a war with India.
I believe the North Korea knew me as a potential leader for China. That they did not launch its rocket on Saturday had given me hope initially.
As such, I was extremely disappointed at hearing the news of the launch last night. Not that the launch itself was not successful technically, it apparently was. I am disappointed that North Korea went ahead anyways. Apparently, Hu Jintao is still in charge in Beijing.
I borrowed two more books from VPL today.
Saturday, April 04, 2009
Thursday, April 02, 2009
The beans
Mea culpa. I screwed up my blogs.
I have been writing about my journey since July 2004. So it is for almost 5 years that I had been able to maintain that "every word I ever put on these blogs is true to the best of my knowledge at the time of posting."
Yet the last two blogs were mostly lies.
I should have known better about myself. These two blogs came out with so much difficulty it's just not worth it.
I lied in those blogs because I wanted to be heard. My thinking was that If I am successful, with my new-found authority perhaps I could stop Chinese government's war plan without having to embarrass anyone. And I knew G20 was my last chance.
Yes, the dame war plan. I believe China has plan to attack India in connection to my debut. It may be in China's interest to do so, but I believe it's wrong.
The Obama administration knew it. The Harper government knew it. They knew everything about me, everything that I knew.
If there are rumors in Canadian or U.S. media circles about the war, they are true.
As of now, I believe Hu Jintao will still be in power post-G20. Judging by the article his writer posted on the Internet yesterday, he will definitely carry out the war plan.
That's why I am spilling all the beans now, hoping the international community will put pressure on him.
I have said many times that I do not like the situation I am in.
Part of my situation is this: I stumbled upon the truth about China's nuclear force by accident. And my debut is most likely connected to some kind of political change in China. Chinese government wanted to use such a crisis as an opportunity.
As I said, I don't like this. I think nuclear weapon should be used as a deterrence, not as something to facilitate aggression.
I stopped such plans by Chinese government before, with great great personal cost.
For example, there was a plan to take Taiwan by force around September or October 2007. I was incarcerated in the Forensic Psychiatric Hospital for a court-ordered psychiatric assessment. I believe that, if I had been a little more confrontational in court at the end of my assessment, Judge Angelomatis would have surely ordered me back to the hospital for treatment. Chinese government would then intervened. Political change would follow in China. During the crisis, China would take Taiwan by force.
It was because of my non-cooperation with the Chinese government that saved Taiwan Strait from another war in 2007. However, as everyone can see, I am still in a virtual prison.
As always, I believe both the U.S. and Canadian governments knew the whole story.
Most recently, there was a similar plan with respect to Taiwan right after U.S. presidential election in early November 2008. Again, I saved Taiwan Strait from another war.
I do not remember exactly when the Chinese government decided to attack India. I probably can give a better date if I have more time to do some research. The rough time when I first realized it was probably back in January or February.
The new Obama administration came to office very hostile towards China. This was evident in Obama's inauguration speech where there were countless "nuts", despite Mr. Obama's many attempts later to try to give alternative interpretations of his words. That's why the stock markets dropped heavily that day.
When Mr. Obama leads, Canadian politicians follow. It was on the day after the inauguration that Mr. Ignatiff famously said that Canadians needed an election like needing "a hole in the head".
That's why Secretary of State Hillary Clinton went to Asia as her first foreign trip. She visited Japan, South Korea and Indonesia before she went to China. Mr. Obama apparently wanted to confront China.
Here in Canada, helicopters were used again to monitor me, among other things, as I touched upon in my February 20 blog.
When Obama took the aggressive stand, China was of course hardened. However, I did not believe in confrontation between these two countries. It's just not rational. I again ignored many "orders" from China to act.
All my actions during this period were meant to build trust.
My strategy worked, culminating in my February 20 blog. In Beijing, Secretary Clinton talked about China and U.S. being in the same boat, quoting ancient Chinese text. President Obama completely changed his strategy toward China, both militarily and economically.
Frankly, I had wanted to be taken out on that day to replace Hu Jintao. That's why I borrowed those 3 disc sets in the morning to make the total number of items on loan 8. (I in fact knew that number 8 was used to refer to the 4th generation as well in Chinese politics.)
However, Chinese government apparently had another idea. Perhaps because I had foiled Obama's confrontation with China and I had some great ideas on China's democratization, Beijing decided that I should be the 3rd generation of Chinese leadership. (I should note that I had no such intention at all when I borrowed those 3 disc sets.)
I realized this on Feb 21 or 22 when I read an article describing 6 commonalities between Mao Zedong and Deng Xiaoping. 6 was used in the article because Beijing wanted to maintain in public that they only considered me as the 6th generation of Chinese leadership so that I could be free to establish myself here in Canada.
Initially, whether to allow me to establish myself here in Canada was a sticking point between China and U.S.A. That's why Mr. Obama made several references to ancestors in his inauguration speech. As for myself, as I said, I only tried to pursue relationship here after I had realized that I had been drugged by the governments.
After February 20, however, there apparently are some kind of deal between China and U.S.A. I believe India was part of the deal, even if it's unspoken.
That's why Mr. Obama made 3 points in his speech to congress on Feb 24 and sang the praise for China. Note he had mentioned communism in his inauguration speech.
I posted an update on Feb 28 after reading Mr. Harper's interview with Wall Street Journal that day. He used "troublesome" to describe Russians. It was a word I originally used in my update to describe my experience in VPL on September 24, 2008. (I had to change it to "frustrating" for lack of a better word.) Apparently Mr. Harper was able to read my files in my local disc. The update was written partly in response to Mr. Obama's inauguration speech. It had been sitting in my disc for a while.
Beijing and Washington waited for me to finish my blogs on China's democratization. The plan was that, if and when I finished the writing, they would bring me out as the sixth generation. China would soon start a war with India.
I did not like the idea of a war with India. I wanted to sabotage it, but I did not want to irritate anyone. That's why I gave hint to the war in the 3rd paragraph of my second installment on China's democratization, published March 6. The reaction from Beijing was predictably very angry, essentially saying that I was playing with fire.
Mr. Obama was not happy either. But his unhappiness was most from the economic part of my blog. Using his weekly radio address the next day, he signaled that I should modify my economic writing, perhaps say that the economic tasks I mentioned for China were long-term projects. He also implied India by saying "to discover great opportunity in the midst of great crisis". He also signaled that he would modify his budget by saying "we will prove ourselves worthy of the sacrifice of those who came before us, and the promise of those who will come after."
But I hesitated, unhappy with Obama's budget proposal. (I believe the problem is philosophical. Pragmatism works only when both sides take a pragmatic view.) It will cost China too much. By Sunday, seeing no actions from me, the Obama administration turned hostile, as can be seen from an interview given to Financial Times by his economic advisor, Larry Summers.
It was in this environment, I believe, that a confrontation took place involving U.S. navy ship Impeccable on the South China Sea. -- Updated hours later.
In the evening of Monday, March 9, I was told that the next day was a sensitive date for Tibet, which, I believe, was part of the reason for China's war plan with India. However, despite the warning, I published my third installment at 11:59PM, thus leaving another clue to China's war plan.
The next day, during a speech Mr. Harper purposely read a Chinese proverb from a piece of paper: "A great crisis is also a great opportunity." Or something along the line. Mr. Harper was essentially following Mr. Obama.
Other clues about India that I left:
On March 13, I went to a department store and picked 3 jackets and asked the sales counter to hold for me. Again, Beijing was furious with me, telling me there would be no deal with Washington if such incident happened again.
On March 17, even after I had definitely signaled my intention of being the 6th generation with the publication of my acknowledgement, I still kept the 3 disc sets whiling returning two books later that day. (I should have mentioned that When Deng Xiaoping came to power in late 1970s, he started a war with Vietnam.)
I am not sure if this had anything to do with U.S. Fed's decision the next day of "quantitative easing", essentially printing money.
I did notice that Mr. Obama, after being quiet for a while about those costly long-term projects in his budget, talked about them again on the south lawn of the White House that day. -- Updated hours later.
And Mr. Obama appeared to have been favoring Hu Jintao since. Two days later, it was announced that they would meet at G20 Summit in London.
I believe the number three in Treasury secretary Tim Geithner's bank rescue plan was to boost confidence in the stock markets because he knew that the markets believed in me. Essentially, Obama administration was playing both Hu and me. But he favors Hu, I believe.
I have been writing about my journey since July 2004. So it is for almost 5 years that I had been able to maintain that "every word I ever put on these blogs is true to the best of my knowledge at the time of posting."
Yet the last two blogs were mostly lies.
I should have known better about myself. These two blogs came out with so much difficulty it's just not worth it.
I lied in those blogs because I wanted to be heard. My thinking was that If I am successful, with my new-found authority perhaps I could stop Chinese government's war plan without having to embarrass anyone. And I knew G20 was my last chance.
Yes, the dame war plan. I believe China has plan to attack India in connection to my debut. It may be in China's interest to do so, but I believe it's wrong.
The Obama administration knew it. The Harper government knew it. They knew everything about me, everything that I knew.
If there are rumors in Canadian or U.S. media circles about the war, they are true.
As of now, I believe Hu Jintao will still be in power post-G20. Judging by the article his writer posted on the Internet yesterday, he will definitely carry out the war plan.
That's why I am spilling all the beans now, hoping the international community will put pressure on him.
I have said many times that I do not like the situation I am in.
Part of my situation is this: I stumbled upon the truth about China's nuclear force by accident. And my debut is most likely connected to some kind of political change in China. Chinese government wanted to use such a crisis as an opportunity.
As I said, I don't like this. I think nuclear weapon should be used as a deterrence, not as something to facilitate aggression.
I stopped such plans by Chinese government before, with great great personal cost.
For example, there was a plan to take Taiwan by force around September or October 2007. I was incarcerated in the Forensic Psychiatric Hospital for a court-ordered psychiatric assessment. I believe that, if I had been a little more confrontational in court at the end of my assessment, Judge Angelomatis would have surely ordered me back to the hospital for treatment. Chinese government would then intervened. Political change would follow in China. During the crisis, China would take Taiwan by force.
It was because of my non-cooperation with the Chinese government that saved Taiwan Strait from another war in 2007. However, as everyone can see, I am still in a virtual prison.
As always, I believe both the U.S. and Canadian governments knew the whole story.
Most recently, there was a similar plan with respect to Taiwan right after U.S. presidential election in early November 2008. Again, I saved Taiwan Strait from another war.
I do not remember exactly when the Chinese government decided to attack India. I probably can give a better date if I have more time to do some research. The rough time when I first realized it was probably back in January or February.
The new Obama administration came to office very hostile towards China. This was evident in Obama's inauguration speech where there were countless "nuts", despite Mr. Obama's many attempts later to try to give alternative interpretations of his words. That's why the stock markets dropped heavily that day.
When Mr. Obama leads, Canadian politicians follow. It was on the day after the inauguration that Mr. Ignatiff famously said that Canadians needed an election like needing "a hole in the head".
That's why Secretary of State Hillary Clinton went to Asia as her first foreign trip. She visited Japan, South Korea and Indonesia before she went to China. Mr. Obama apparently wanted to confront China.
Here in Canada, helicopters were used again to monitor me, among other things, as I touched upon in my February 20 blog.
When Obama took the aggressive stand, China was of course hardened. However, I did not believe in confrontation between these two countries. It's just not rational. I again ignored many "orders" from China to act.
All my actions during this period were meant to build trust.
My strategy worked, culminating in my February 20 blog. In Beijing, Secretary Clinton talked about China and U.S. being in the same boat, quoting ancient Chinese text. President Obama completely changed his strategy toward China, both militarily and economically.
Frankly, I had wanted to be taken out on that day to replace Hu Jintao. That's why I borrowed those 3 disc sets in the morning to make the total number of items on loan 8. (I in fact knew that number 8 was used to refer to the 4th generation as well in Chinese politics.)
However, Chinese government apparently had another idea. Perhaps because I had foiled Obama's confrontation with China and I had some great ideas on China's democratization, Beijing decided that I should be the 3rd generation of Chinese leadership. (I should note that I had no such intention at all when I borrowed those 3 disc sets.)
I realized this on Feb 21 or 22 when I read an article describing 6 commonalities between Mao Zedong and Deng Xiaoping. 6 was used in the article because Beijing wanted to maintain in public that they only considered me as the 6th generation of Chinese leadership so that I could be free to establish myself here in Canada.
Initially, whether to allow me to establish myself here in Canada was a sticking point between China and U.S.A. That's why Mr. Obama made several references to ancestors in his inauguration speech. As for myself, as I said, I only tried to pursue relationship here after I had realized that I had been drugged by the governments.
After February 20, however, there apparently are some kind of deal between China and U.S.A. I believe India was part of the deal, even if it's unspoken.
That's why Mr. Obama made 3 points in his speech to congress on Feb 24 and sang the praise for China. Note he had mentioned communism in his inauguration speech.
I posted an update on Feb 28 after reading Mr. Harper's interview with Wall Street Journal that day. He used "troublesome" to describe Russians. It was a word I originally used in my update to describe my experience in VPL on September 24, 2008. (I had to change it to "frustrating" for lack of a better word.) Apparently Mr. Harper was able to read my files in my local disc. The update was written partly in response to Mr. Obama's inauguration speech. It had been sitting in my disc for a while.
Beijing and Washington waited for me to finish my blogs on China's democratization. The plan was that, if and when I finished the writing, they would bring me out as the sixth generation. China would soon start a war with India.
I did not like the idea of a war with India. I wanted to sabotage it, but I did not want to irritate anyone. That's why I gave hint to the war in the 3rd paragraph of my second installment on China's democratization, published March 6. The reaction from Beijing was predictably very angry, essentially saying that I was playing with fire.
Mr. Obama was not happy either. But his unhappiness was most from the economic part of my blog. Using his weekly radio address the next day, he signaled that I should modify my economic writing, perhaps say that the economic tasks I mentioned for China were long-term projects. He also implied India by saying "to discover great opportunity in the midst of great crisis". He also signaled that he would modify his budget by saying "we will prove ourselves worthy of the sacrifice of those who came before us, and the promise of those who will come after."
But I hesitated, unhappy with Obama's budget proposal. (I believe the problem is philosophical. Pragmatism works only when both sides take a pragmatic view.) It will cost China too much. By Sunday, seeing no actions from me, the Obama administration turned hostile, as can be seen from an interview given to Financial Times by his economic advisor, Larry Summers.
It was in this environment, I believe, that a confrontation took place involving U.S. navy ship Impeccable on the South China Sea. -- Updated hours later.
In the evening of Monday, March 9, I was told that the next day was a sensitive date for Tibet, which, I believe, was part of the reason for China's war plan with India. However, despite the warning, I published my third installment at 11:59PM, thus leaving another clue to China's war plan.
The next day, during a speech Mr. Harper purposely read a Chinese proverb from a piece of paper: "A great crisis is also a great opportunity." Or something along the line. Mr. Harper was essentially following Mr. Obama.
Other clues about India that I left:
On March 13, I went to a department store and picked 3 jackets and asked the sales counter to hold for me. Again, Beijing was furious with me, telling me there would be no deal with Washington if such incident happened again.
On March 17, even after I had definitely signaled my intention of being the 6th generation with the publication of my acknowledgement, I still kept the 3 disc sets whiling returning two books later that day. (I should have mentioned that When Deng Xiaoping came to power in late 1970s, he started a war with Vietnam.)
I am not sure if this had anything to do with U.S. Fed's decision the next day of "quantitative easing", essentially printing money.
I did notice that Mr. Obama, after being quiet for a while about those costly long-term projects in his budget, talked about them again on the south lawn of the White House that day. -- Updated hours later.
And Mr. Obama appeared to have been favoring Hu Jintao since. Two days later, it was announced that they would meet at G20 Summit in London.
I believe the number three in Treasury secretary Tim Geithner's bank rescue plan was to boost confidence in the stock markets because he knew that the markets believed in me. Essentially, Obama administration was playing both Hu and me. But he favors Hu, I believe.
Wednesday, April 01, 2009
Wow. I hope this is no April Fool’s joke
I read Norman's Spectator almost everyday. This morning, Mr. Spector seemed to suggest that I should look into the 3 disc sets - which I called "items" in my blog yesterday - I borrowed from SFU and perhaps treat them separately from the rest of the books.
In effect, he appeared to suggest that those 6 items I had on loan before the switch on March 18 should be regarded 3 and 3, rather than 4 and 2 as I had thought.
For those of you who do not already know, the 6 items from SFU were:
That's why, sensing potential ambiguity, I returned the above 6 items and borrowed another 6 art books later that day.
But why did Mr. Spector suggest 3? Was I being considered for the 3rd generation? To replace Mr. Jiang Zemin? That couldn't be. IF I was being considered as the 3rd generation, it could only be in the sense of next to Mao Zedong and Deng Xiaoping. As is widely known, Mao's policies influenced China in the first 30 years and Deng's the next 30.
Wow.
I have to ask: Is this an April Fool's joke? Mr. Spector seemed to say no.
The only article or speech I could remember that contained three points was U.S. Secretary of Treasury Tim Geithner's bank rescue plan released last Monday. He said that his program had "three essential design features".
Mr. Geithner's article rang a bell in my memory because the word "design" was one of the reasons I borrowed Jerry Z. Muller's book on Adam Smith last fall. This book was listed in my acknowledgment.
Also, when I wrote about China's democratic future, I was trying to envision what kind of society China should be. In a sense, there was an element of design in my overall efforts.
If my above reasoning is correct, the Obama administration must have thought of my series on China's democratization very positively. That could help to explain the almost 500 point climb in Dow Jones index that day. And it was also consistent with Mr. Obama's speech on March 12.
Wow. If the Obama administration regarded me as the 3rd generation, I probably overreacted to Mr. Obama's speech.
And is that why Mr. Harper said in London today that the G20 nation should "overreact" to the recession?
Quick Update:
I also found that Mr. Obama's speech before the joint session of the congress also contained three points. That speech was delivered on February 24, just fours days after I first borrowed the 3 disc sets.
--How can you be sure the second item you've just read is no April Fool's joke?
In effect, he appeared to suggest that those 6 items I had on loan before the switch on March 18 should be regarded 3 and 3, rather than 4 and 2 as I had thought.
For those of you who do not already know, the 6 items from SFU were:
- The malaise of modernity by Charles Taylor [book]
- The malaise of modernity by Charles Taylor [sound recording], disc set one
- The malaise of modernity by Charles Taylor [sound recording], disc set two
- The malaise of modernity by Charles Taylor [sound recording], disc set three
- Art: a world history
- On the enjoyment of modern art
That's why, sensing potential ambiguity, I returned the above 6 items and borrowed another 6 art books later that day.
But why did Mr. Spector suggest 3? Was I being considered for the 3rd generation? To replace Mr. Jiang Zemin? That couldn't be. IF I was being considered as the 3rd generation, it could only be in the sense of next to Mao Zedong and Deng Xiaoping. As is widely known, Mao's policies influenced China in the first 30 years and Deng's the next 30.
Wow.
I have to ask: Is this an April Fool's joke? Mr. Spector seemed to say no.
The only article or speech I could remember that contained three points was U.S. Secretary of Treasury Tim Geithner's bank rescue plan released last Monday. He said that his program had "three essential design features".
Mr. Geithner's article rang a bell in my memory because the word "design" was one of the reasons I borrowed Jerry Z. Muller's book on Adam Smith last fall. This book was listed in my acknowledgment.
Also, when I wrote about China's democratic future, I was trying to envision what kind of society China should be. In a sense, there was an element of design in my overall efforts.
If my above reasoning is correct, the Obama administration must have thought of my series on China's democratization very positively. That could help to explain the almost 500 point climb in Dow Jones index that day. And it was also consistent with Mr. Obama's speech on March 12.
Wow. If the Obama administration regarded me as the 3rd generation, I probably overreacted to Mr. Obama's speech.
And is that why Mr. Harper said in London today that the G20 nation should "overreact" to the recession?
Quick Update:
I also found that Mr. Obama's speech before the joint session of the congress also contained three points. That speech was delivered on February 24, just fours days after I first borrowed the 3 disc sets.