The New York Times has published a piece on what is happening in China, ‘Absolutely No Mercy’: Leaked Files Expose How China Organized Mass Detentions of Muslims, based on a leak of 400 pages (I assume you should be able to read the article if you click the link even without a subscription). As to the source of that leak, “The papers were brought to light by a member of the Chinese political establishment who requested anonymity and expressed hope that their disclosure would prevent party leaders, including Mr. Xi, from escaping culpability for the mass detentions.”
The piece is a testament to the brutality of the fiat will of an authoritarian state. But it is also a testament to the humanity that persists in the face of that domination of spirit.
The entire article is very long and detailed, and I invite readers who can read Chinese to read the original documents. Obviously I cannot. But, my own takeaway is that it’s about as bad as we thought, and Xi Jinping is a more subtle and complex thinker on issues related to Xinjiang than the title might imply.
On the whole, I think we should be skeptical about sensational stories, such as the one about people being harvested for their organs. These are the sorts of things that really induce click-throughs, but if you consider the genetics Uyghurs are not going to be the best source of organ matches for most Chinese in any case (in contrast, criminals drawn from the general population could be).
But after reading Frank Dikotter’s The Cultural Revolution what is described in the piece is very familiar (there are major differences, the Cultural Revolution was very much an intra-elite conflict in which the masses were collateral damage, while this is clearly directed by a more unified state against an ethnoreligious group). Some of the responses to the article declared that this was similar to what was occurring in Nazi Germany in the 1930s. I am open to suggestions about the strength of the analogy, or book recommendations about Nazi Germany (I recently read Thomas Childers’ The Third Reich: A History of Nazi Germany), but from what I have read about the rise of the Nazi state and its industrial-scale genocidal aims and operations, this is not that. There is a precedent that I think is analogous to what the Nazis aimed for, and that is the Dzhungar genocide.
Rather, it seems that Xi Jinping’s goal is to use state coercion to forcibly extinguish the cultural distinctiveness of the Uyghur people. This aim also erupted explosively during the Cultural Revolution when minority customs were targeted by the Red Guards, but its roots are old in the Chinese system and cultural memory. The Chinese have assimilated foreigners and minority groups for thousands of years. Sometimes that assimilation is passive. And sometimes it is aggressive. But it has been a feature of the Chinese cultural landscape since the beginning.
The nature of Chinese assimilation can often cause problems for religions, particularly those perceived to be foreign. Even after 1,500 years of a presence at the center of Chinese life, Buddhism was still seen as a foreign antisocial influence by Confucian mandarins at the end of the Imperial period. Attempting to understand the Chinese in terms of their own society, early European Roman Catholic missionaries dressed in a manner similar to Buddhist monks when they arrived in the Ming court. Only later did they understand that the Chinese elites did not hold these monks in particularly high esteem, and so changed their wardrobe to mimic Confucian bureaucrats.
As a stylized fact between the end of the Shang dynasty and the crystallization of State Confucianism under the Han dynasty, the intellectual elite of Chinese society shifted away from the propitiation of a personal God (Shangdi) toward reverence for an impersonal principle of Heaven (Tian). This is not to say the cults of various supernatural figures, gods and goddesses, were not popular. Rather, these were a mass religious phenomenon, but not integrated seriously into the ideology of the elite. In contrast, though Christianity and Islam exhibit elite and mass modalities, they perceive themselves as a whole on some level. The contempt of Christian or Muslim elites for the superstitions of the mass of believers is tempered by their role as spiritual mentors and teachers (e.g., “reforming Christianity”). In contrast, the Confucian educated elite of China treated mass religion with benign neglect, not as something worthy of ideological engagement. So long as religion was not a motive force for revolution and an institutional rival to the state and its subsidiary units, it was left in peace.
This juxtaposition and contrast explain the Chinese attitudes toward “foreign” and “Western” religions. The Chinese customs and traditions as passed down from the time of Confucius served as organizing principles of civilized life. Islam and Christianity can also serve as civilizing forces. Christianity was the primary force through which Romanitas was transmitted after the fall of the Western Roman Empire to Northern Europe. Islam emerged as a binding ethos of a vast and diverse Caliphate. China, with its own indigenous traditions, did not need some such a binding force.
There was a period in the early Tang dynasty when various forms of Buddhism became so institutionally powerful that it looked as that religion would come to take a central position in elite Chinese identity, as it had and would in many societies (e.g., Tibet, Burma, Thailand, Sri Lanka, Silla Korea, and Tokugawa Japan). But what happened is that in the second half of the Tang dynasty institutional Buddhism was eviscerated, with the monastic wealth being confiscated, and monks and nuns being driven back to secular life. Though Buddhism persisted, obviously, it never again challenged the Confucian system as an institutional framework and body which provided an alternative Weltanschauung which could supersede the rites developed during the Spring and Autumn periods.*
Modern China’s “problems” with two particular groups in the western regions, Uyghurs and Tibetans is not a surprise. Both of these groups are strongly attached to a religious Weltanschauung which is somewhat incommensurable with the Chinese system. And, both of these have never really been part of the Chinese system in a deep way. The conquest of Xinjiang under the Manchus was the conquest of the Manchus as Central Asian warlords, not as Emperors of China. Tibet received Manchu protection, but it was given autonomy, in part due to the Manchu affinity for Tibetan Buddhism (there are also complex politics with the Mongols).**
The Uyghur Muslims, who are culturally descended from Karluk Turks who expanded into the Tarim basin between 1000 and 1500 AD, have little historical experience of the assimilationist tendencies of the Chinese state. This is in contrast to the Hui Muslims, Muslims in China proper who speak dialects of Chinese, and are physically quite similar to their Han neighb
ors (some West Asian ancestry is visible in many Hui as well). Though there are concentrations of Hui in Gansu and Yunnan, Muslims have been a presence in the cities of eastern China for many centuries. The Dao of Muhammad: A Cultural History of Muslims in Late Imperial China is a work that explores the intellectual response of very religious Muslim intellectuals to the claims of Chinese civilization. I will not review the whole argument, but I will say that it is clear one line of reasoning began to lead to a synthesis with Confucian thought so that an Islam with clear Chinese characteristics was emerging in the 18th-century. Further west, in and around the Gansu corridor, Chinese Muslim practice and belief were veering into syncretism with Pure Land Buddhism.
But these syntheses were not to be. Early modernity saw the collapse of the Manchu political system, the prestige of Chinese culture, and the reemergence of an international Islam reinvigorated by modern communication technology and travel. Chinese Islam has experienced several waves of “reform,” which operationally mean standardization and alignment with world-normative Islam so that several Chinese sects now derive from this process of reinvigoration. Though Chinese Muslims have always lived a somewhat separate life from non-Muslims due to their dietary restrictions, Islamic reform movements have also added more external differentiation, from the manner of dress to grooming, to the architectural style of the mosque.
The widespread mass antipathy toward Islam from the Chinese populace reflects the reality that Islam, properly understood by most Muslims, involves participation and assertion in public domains of the Islamic religion, and regulation of private life in a manner which mandates separation from the broader non-Muslim society. Islam is not simply another private cultic practice, a devotion to a regional god, or excessive enthusiasm for amulets and astrology. It is an ethical and metaphysical system that can rival Neo-Confucianism and Communism. Chinese history suggests that religious organizations have a great ability to mobilize and become the seedbeds for revolution and overthrow the current order. The founder of the Ming dynasty spent a period as a Buddhist monk, but ultimately his path to victory came through his association with a regional millenarian cult with Manichaean antecedents.
In the article above Xi notes that acts of violence by Uyghur radicals in the late 2000s have a cause proximately in geopolitics (Islamic radicalism in Central and West Asia). But, he suggests that the ultimate issue is the depth of the feeling of Muslims about their religion. This indicates that the ultimate aim by Xi is of a much broader scope than the reeducation of just the Uyghurs. There are as many Hui Muslims as Uyghurs, and the Hui are distributed broadly across China. Xi seems to be a realist and understand that religion will not fade away. But, he also seems to be affirming the historical practice of the Chinese state and elite in crushing the institutional independence and solidity of religions that involve more than just personal and private devotion.
Religion as another individual consumer good is tolerable. Religion as a force for social coordination for the production of social phenomena is dangerous.
Previous Chinese leaders seem to have accepted and believed that economic development will lead to ethnic and religious harmony. But the literature does not show a simple pattern where development leads to a diminishment of confessional or sectarian feelings. On the contrary, the anomie induced by rapid development can result in the emergence of powerful religious revivals whose aim is to bring order and stability back into the lives of the dislocated. Uyghur separatism may in fact be due to economic development, and the greater integration of the Uyghurs with ethnic Han.
Historically the Chinese state has been suspicious of overlarge and powerful non-state institutions of civic society. Islamic religious revival and identity is a problem because it counteracts the assimilative power of the consumer economy. The reeducation camps are an attempt to check the integrative action of Islam, so that eventually the Uyghurs as a distinctive ethnic unit may disappear. This is entirely possible, as they are only 0.76% of the population of the Peoples’ Republic of China.
Finally, one must admit that cultural extinction does not entail physical genocide. But the loss of memory effaces the past and restructures the present. The eastern Uyghur city of Turpan was conquered by Muslim Turks only in the late 14th-century. It was the last bastion of Buddhist Uyghur culture. Within a century the Uyghurs of Turpan were Islamicized. In the 17th-century the Uyghurs of Turpan believed that the ruined Buddhism temples that their ancestors had worshipped in and built were actually the works of the Oirat Mongols, who had recently converted to Buddhism.
The truth is what one chooses to remember. Or is forced to.
* Neo-Confucianism and religious Daoism both “borrowed” extensively from Buddhist metaphysics, while the influence of Daoism is clear in some Chinese sects, such as Chan, which became Zen in Japan.
** Han and Tang dynasty suzerainty over Tarim basin oases have nothing to do with modern Uyghurs and were tenuous and short-lived in any case.
The problem with Islamist ideology is that it has deep roots and can be reactivated even after long periods of moderation. When I grew up with Muslim kids, most had some religiousness, but conservative ideas were rare, radical ones non-existent. Since then the percentage of Muslims was rising, new came in, but also among the present ones the attitude changed drastically. When I was in school about 1 in 10 Muslim girls wore some sort of scarf, almost no one a real hijab. Now the percentage in some areas has turned around and in some almost exclusively Muslim classes there are no Islamic girls left without. There are kids of moderate Muslim guys I knew which make Islamic state like probaganda in front of a shopping center right now and try to get their grip on the next wave of immigrants, which is more radical by default already.
What happened in between is that a more conservative Islam spread, also because of the political change in Turkey, but not just that, because of the end of Western alternatives to the Western Capitalist system. Western style socialism, nationalism and fascism all fell down and were defeated by American-British style Neoliberalism. At the same time the conflict in Palestine got attention and probably even more important was the gulf states influence, especially from Saudi Arabia.
They were involved in all major wars with a Sunni Muslim cultural background to it, in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kosovo, Chechnya, Iraq, Syria and of course, they tried to get their hands on Central Asia and China too. This is a direct threat to all Chinese geostrategic plans and they are on their throat by spreading Islamism.
So there is this strange alliance of the USA, Saudia Arabia, Turkey and Israel, not necessarily states which always agree with each other, but which all used Sunni Islam in particular for their political goals. Even in most German cities most mosques are either build by organisations from Turkey, which is now under Erdogan style Islamo-Nationalism, or Saudi Arabia and the gulf states.
Back to the Uyghurs, its not like China attacked them for no reason. There were highly violent terror attacks and assaults on ethnic Chinese. Its was not about their cultural freedom, it was an ethno-islamist threat they were facing, obviously supported, like in the conflicts I quoted, among others, by the powers which use and abuse Sunni Islamism for their own goals.
Now as a state you have three choices:
1st: You play the police and soft re-education with integretion Western style game, like it never worked anywhere and will cost you a lot of money and the lives of your good people, will lead you into ever more compromises and in the end the results are highly doubtful.
2nd: You install like Putin did an Islamist authoritarian ruler with which you made some sort of compromise. This won’t stop Isliamism, but you might be able to ally up with some of them to fight those instrumentalised against you by foreign powers. Putin did this, quite obviously, with Kadyrov in Chechnya. This might fire back big time, but its a solution you can apply for a time, especially if the Islamist threat is localised and you have no high percentage in the overall population.
3rd: You make no compromise by being uncompromising in your reaction to the Islamist threat. This means you have to cut the roots of it, and this means to make an attack on conservative Islam or even Islam itself. Its the only long term successful solution if go it through, with all consequences, always reacting harsher than the opponent if necessary. So no Liberal considerations allowed, because if you allow them, you end up in the kind of counter-insurgency and cultural campaigns the West unsuccessfully applied whenever faced with the problem.
And to make it clear: The rise of Islamism, especially the most radical Sunni Islamism was promoted by the gulf states, especially the Wahhabits of Saudi Arabia, worldwide. They might believe in the mission, but it was also, always, a political weapon. And in this unholy and strange alliance of the USA-Israel with Saudi Arabia, the whole alliance repeatedly used this political-ideological weapon LATEST since Afghanistan. Isreal too supported Sunni Islamist terror groups in Syria and Iran. The USA as well, no doubt about it. The whole scale of the Chechnya-conflict would have been unthinkable without that support and Islamist missionaries. So the Chinese have the option to wait, until they have their Grosny and can install a corrupt Islamist like Kadyrov in the hope of getting control back – obviously no “democratic” options in any case, or they are the first to get to the roots.
For the future it will be a great asset of the Chinese state to not have an Islamist problem in their homeland if they are successful, unlike most Western states. Because the USA and their establishment protects, promotes and abuses Sunni Islamism and fighting it at the same time when they “go to far” for their geostrategical interests. That won’t work out on the long term. Some US and Israeli think tanks still believe that Sunni Islamism is like a tool and toy for their interests. Yes, that’s true reason behind it, they are so arrogant they think they can use it, like in Afghanistan, Chechnya and Syria, but still control it.
They did this. They allowed it to happen. Of course people which realise the problem try to fight back, especially if they are not under the control of the US hegemon so far. But its not the USA were clean warriors for democracy or something like that, they caused it, they are responsible. If you want to keep up a modern, independent state, you have to face it sooner or later.
Great analysis.
Obs’s analysis is correct.
It started with Zbigniew Brzezinski with Carter in 1979. Brzezinski came up with the idea, inspired by the Iranian revolution early in ’79 to use Islamism to attack the “soft underbelly” of the USSR at the time. The soft underbelly was the Central Asian Republics of the USSR. This strategy worked (Reagan offered Brzezinski a position in his administration, but he declined), along with the general economic decline, resulted in the collapse of the USSR. Think of it as the 80’s equivalent of how we worked with Stalin to defeat Hitler. I think this strategy was good. Clearly the USSR was a far greater threat to us than Islamism could ever be. However, this policy should have stopped in 1991. It did not, and that is the problem.
The problem is that the interventionist/neo-cons became entrenched as a result of 40 years of cold war that they continued, mostly on auto-pilot with using Islamism as a weapon since that time. The interventionists are clearly entrenched. It is them that are behind the “coup” attempt against Trump (the liberal democrats are patsies in this). This is the so-called “deep state”. The Chinese are brutal. But, as Razib is pointing out, are acting entirely within their historical precedent. I have friends in China who told me that Islamic terrorism was a serious problem during the 00’s and that it was not reported much by our MSM (surprise, surprise!). Additionally, the Turks were offering passports to Uyghurs so that they could go join up with ISIS. There was a major bombing in Thailand in an area with lots of Chinese tourists when the Chinese government began cracking down on this.
As one might say, there are really no good guys in this issue. That, and for many other reasons (mainly that Washington DC bureaucrats do not understand foreign cultures), its best that the U.S. turf out its neo-cons and ramp down our interventionist foreign policy. That is one of the things that Trump is trying to do that is pissing off the Washington DC establishment. In any case, have any of you looked at our national debt lately? We cannot afford to do this stuff any more.
“But its not the USA … they caused it”
Caused what?
China observed how US reacted to 9/11 and Europe to Merkel’s open border flood (and its aftermaths) and NOPE’d extremely hard. What else could they have done? Follow the same paths?
The spread of Islamism was allowed and supported by the USA. If the USA would have positioned themselves against radical Islam from the start, it would have never spread the way it did. On the contrary, they worked together with the gulf states to spread radical Sunni Islam.
And Abelard is absolutely right about the unfair attacks on Trump. Trump is the first president in decades not supporting the Neocon spread of wars and terrorism with US money and power. That’s the main reason, nothing else, why John McCain, a Neocon-puppet, a “Communist-hater” and anti-Russian, fought Trump to his death. He wanted to allow Sunni Islamism to ruin Syria.
Without the coordinated support of GB, USA, Israel, Turkey and the Gulf States, something like the Islamic state would have never came up there the way it did. NEVER. Its like a joke if the USA, Israel and Turkey want to keep forces in Syria to “fight the Islamic state”.
That’s the reason they hate Trump so much, because like some conservative analysts recently repeated, he talks a lot of trash, but his policy actually makes sense if you want peace and prosperity for the USA.
Some “elites” want to make big business with China while supporting ANY kind of threat to the Chinese people. The Uyghurs are the victims of this policy, as they were instrumentalised by Islamists and the unholy alliance, which no rational state and leadership can tolerate.
If nations fight radical Islam and the spread of Islam in general, the longer they wait, the more radical they have to get themselves to keep it under control. That’s just the way it it. China was fairly tolerant to its Muslim minorities, even more so than to their own Han people and their cultural freedom at times. But enough is enough. You don’t want to have a dagger at your belly all the time and the spread of Islamism in Central Asia must be stopped for their very security and prosperity. This might even bring China, India and Russia closer together. But the Neocon strategists in the USA and Israel might proceed in pampering the Gulf State corrupt sheiks and their dreams of a worldwide Islamisation, because they want to hurt the other powers with their unholy, in fact anti-modern, anti-European, anti-Western alliances.
Trump is the first one to make a difference, even if just slightly. But unfortunately, the people behind the state, call them “deep state” or whatever you want, hate him for this as much as the Cultural Marxists for his “political incorrectness” and stance on migration. They even want to cut the social media to keep “Populism” under control, so they can proceed with their lies.
These “elites” ruin the USA, its population, culture and the world for their geopolitical power games, that’s what they do. The support if Sunni Islamism was one of the worst things the USA ever did. And its absurd for a Christian European founded nation, which is hated more by Islamists than by any of the “axis of evil” powers they otherwise talk about. They justify a police state control, domestic and in allied states, and crueal wars abroad with millions of dead people with the fight against “Islamist terror”, while at the same time STILL supporting it!
Would Hillary Clinton would have won the last election, this maniacs might have risked a regional, or even worldwide escalation of the conflict in Syria. This person demanded a no fly zone and the “Western” propaganda spread complete nonsense about Assad and his regime, always showing just his atrocities, while masses of Shia Muslims, Christians, Alevites and Yazids were butchered and tortured to death. The massacres were known to every one with open eyes long before the first Westerners were killed in front of a camera, but they ignored it. The whole mass media industry ignored it. They were on warpath at that time.
The election of Trump was the rescue in the last second from this maniacs and their networks! Unbelievably close to a catastrophy for even more people around the world!
The whole refugee crisis in Europe – no collateral damage, but fits into the scheme too for the European people and “culture change” there – millions dead in the Near East and there were and still are American high ranking politicians which blame Trump for his “inhumane policy”. Hypocrites and liars!
The rise of Islamism, especially the most radical Sunni Islamism was promoted by the gulf states, especially the Wahhabits of Saudi Arabia, worldwide.
saudi wahhabism is overemphasized imo. accelerant. but islamic salafi-style reformist has deep roots as a reaction to early modernity all over the place.
I have friends in China who told me that Islamic terrorism was a serious problem during the 00’s and that it was not reported much by our MSM (surprise, surprise!).
in the 00s the chinese gov. suppressed nationalist blowback against uyghurs and tibetans, who were involved in violence. tbh i suspect the gov. STILL remains a moderating influence on the passions of the populace…
Without the Chinese government there would be Chinese massacres all over the place. The Chinese are no people indoctrinated by Cultural Marxism. If one of their own being killed in an absolutely cruel way by Islamists, they take up what they can get their hands on and fight back.
Like Trump said, there is no real war in Afghanistan, a real war would be won in days. Its a police action against insurgents and they try to keep civilians save and Western style laws and protection up.
The problem is, you lose a lot of your boys and girls, still hit innocents and achieve nothing. Caesar wouldnt have conquered Gallia and Alexander never todays Afghanistan with such considerations. If your opponent is allowed to hide behind civilians and Western laws, good luck with losing as few of your own people as possible, but you wont win unless you have another fanatical local group (like Putin) on your side and pay them big time.
The Chinese government was under pressure to do something, thats right. They were fairly hard against Chinese which began to react violent, but they are supposed to deliver.
And if they want to secure their silk road and Central Asian allies, it doesnt look good if they lose control in their own yard.
Wahhabism is highly important and the Saudi propaganda war had a huge impact which cant be overestimated.
Something like Salafism did not exist in many places before there missionaries came!
In some places it was virtually dead, in others the local style traditional Islam was in many ways directly opposed to Wahhabism (like local Sufi traditions) and now you see burkas and beards in all those places!
There are many witnesses for what happened in e.g. Bosnia and Chechnya. Of moderate people which came into contact with Saudi agents, were collectively brainwashed and were ready to blow themselves up or cut children’s throats afterwards. They often destroy their own Islamic (!) ancestors monuments too, not just Buddhist etc., if its against that kind of “Islamic interpretation”.
Or mosques financed by these agents which turned the atmosphere in the Muslim communities of whole European city districts.
This is very, very real. Its a lot of money, mostly oil money from the West, going into this Islamist wars and propaganda. And the USA tolerate or even support it!
“from what I have read about the rise of the Nazi state and its industrial-scale genocidal aims and operations, this is not that”
Don’t know what you’ve read, but that’s definitely not Germany in the 30’s. They only decided on mass genocide in the early 40’s, when the war had already started. You could say it started with the Reichskristallnacht in 38, but real plans for mass incarceration & then genocide were made only later.
The drumbeat for war against Russia on the part of Hillary’s campaign in Aug-Sept of ’16 got down right frightening. If elected, Hillary was planning to impose a no flight zone over Syria and bring both Georgia and Ukraine into NATO. This would have most certain prompted a war with Russia, a land war on Russia’s western border, that I think we would have lost. How Hillary would have handled the worse military defeat in the U.S. history does not bear thinking about.
I had the impression the warmongerers believed that USA and NATO teaming up could conquer Russia. I bet we could – if Russia didn’t use nuclear weapons.
And these soft money lovers thought that Russia wouldn’t. How quaint
I’m not sure they wanted war with Russia itself at that point in time, rather not. But they would have gambled, risked everything to take Syria down and out of the Russian-Iranian sphere of influence and push Russia in Eastern Europe back. Against all promises given at the end of the Cold War by the way.
To risk the real threat of a large scale, even nuclear war to support, in fact, some of the most fanatic and cruel religious maniacs for quite some time in world history, is telling by itself.
Even worse for American political moral is that this very Islamic terrorists are those which were made officially responsible for 9/11, were the, official, reason for the war on terror.
Including the surveillance-police state measures on the own populace and wars which costed millions of innocent lives, ruined whole countries and political stability worldwide.
And then there was this “progressive” and “Liberal” woman named Clinton and tells the world that she is willing to risk a nuclear war to help this fanatics to conquer and butcher Syria! While they already pose a major threat to “democratised” and American allied Iraq too.
Can it get any lower? Guess so. But Trump is worse, because he doesnt mind his language the media industry said…
He is the warmonger and a threat to “world peace” they still tell average Joe.
The establishment might have even thought her election would be a sure thing, if Trump is her Republican opponent. Thank god they were wrong!
“Chinese history suggests that religious organizations have a great ability to mobilize and become the seedbeds for revolution and overthrow the current order…. The truth is what one chooses to remember. Or is forced to.”
U.S. history also suggests this. We’re just not allowed to say it.
Isn’t this rather similar to how Japan got rid of Catholicism in the 1600?
In short, China’s cultural/civilizational power is too weak to assimilate Islam, so they need to resort to crude Nazi era tactics to wipe it out.
Islam, especially Sunni Islam, is nowhere known for as a positive developmental force. Sunni Islamist extremism is a direct threat to any modern nation, regardless of whether its democratic, authoritarian or whatever.
Since Islamists have more offspring (even among Muslims) and the ideology is still spreading and being abused and supported by the US-led alliance with Israel, Turkey, but especially Saudi Arabia and the gulf states, for what should they wait for?
When they face a major crisis and the Islamists will abuse their weakness? When they have even larger networks? Even more Chinese were murdered and mutilated?
Seriously.
Also, the Chinese are not half-way as brutal in their measures, but for the sake of it I try to explain to some of you the difference between religious and genocidal persecution.
Genocidal persecution is what happened with Armenians in Turkey, Russian middle and upper class in Bolshevik Russia, Jews in Germany or Tutsis in Rwanda. You belong to group X and thats it, no way out, only individual exceptions at best.
Religious persecution usually opens up a door, you are allowed to make a decision. In the case of China, afaik, you don’t even have to renounce your confession at all, they are quite lenient.
Its more like the Christian persecution in Rome was most of the time. You can keep your faith and most customs, if you just prove your loyalty to the state.
And thats what the Chinese government demands. No anti-modernist, anti-state radicalism. And if the radicals step up, they do so as well. Nothing else.
You can’t defeat radical Islam if you just take down those which build bombs. You have to target the milieu and networks they were coming from. With what the West does you just encourage them, because the reactions prove that Western modernity became weak, dumb and corrupted, what’s true.
When the Christians got tolerance from Galerius, did they say thanks and started to behave like good citizens?
No they did not! They saw the weakness and became even more radical than they were before. In the end they destroyed the knowledge of thousands of years and killed and tortured those not agreeing, even the deviant Christians!
The Islamic state is what the new Sunni radicalism is about. That’s what they do if they come to power. If humanitäre would have the choice between uncontrolled Capitalism, Cultural Marxism, radical Islam and the Chinese model, the Chinese model is definitely and by far the best.
There are better viable alternatives, much better actually, in theory, but in practise it looks grim right now. Western think tanks should think twice about what they are approaching, because it should be good for progress and the people while actually working in a sustainable way in the real world.
Whatever the USA are discussing right now as their plans for the World, it doesnt look any better, more effective, social or humane if tested in practise. Which is a shame considering how flawed China is as well. But no, I see no moral or rational superiority from the US. Only different faults with even worse long term outcome for the American and European people.
@obs
If you support China you should also support Japanese massacres of Chinese during WWII. In fact even Jews were not really that innocent. If you read the literautures carefully there are ample evidences that they harrassed and raped European women in their ghettos.
Europeans are “soft” on terrorists and keen on human rights and other non-senses, not because they are overly nice people but because they are trying to own up to and repent their imperial past when non-European native people were sometimes eaten as food.
This is just an endless vicious cycle. China gobbled up lands that don’t belong to them.(2/3 of PRC’s territory) Native and not so native people(like Uighurs) are angry and China uses even more force to suppress them and they get even angrier.
@EastAsianMan: The past and history should help us to understand what happened why and how we can better deal with current problems. I don’t think that guilt or hate are what we should distil from history.
The Chinese have the Uyghurs and the Hui, they can’t let them go, because if they let them go, it will be just the prelude to the next, even worse secession and in the end all of East Asia will fall into chaos. I don’t think there is an easy and peaceful out of it and compromises with radical Islam won’t work out on the long run. Never, nowhere.
Because even if they would let them go, what’s next? They are so infested already, the some sort of “Uyghur republic” might develop into a terror base for all of Central Asia. What a signal!
Look at what happened in Russia. The Chechens got their independence, they got their “freedom”. What happened next? They attacked neighbouring moderate part Muslim districts, made even more terror attacks in Russia. Their extremist wing was always extremely brutal, absolutely relentless after they adopted the Saudi Islamism. The old Chechen nationalists might have just accepted what they got, but the Islamists never could.
They even hate their old customs because they are not “pure” from their new Wahabbi perspective and of course, Chechens were the most brutal guys on the field in Syria. So were even some Central Asians, supported by Turkey and the gulf states. Chechens are everywhere known for their brutality and inhumane actions, that’s part of the their tribal fighting culture.
Now I don’t think Uyghurs are that bad, not at all, but after their independence, if China has to pledge to not intervene, who do you think will take power in this new state?
They will have a similar function in Central Asia as the Chechens had in the Caucasus: Destabilise China, destabilise the macroregion, spread extremist Islamism. You can’t allow that, its impossible, its imperative!
They pose a threat not just for China, not just for the Uyghur province, can’t you see that? They threaten the whole macroregion, the silk road, the Central Asian states. Nobody is sure what they would become if they let them out. That’s why you don’t hear to much about it. Everybody with a clear state of mind knows the Chinese can’t let them go and they won’t put up with everything they throw at them. And like I said, to catch just those building bombs is not enough, especially if there was the kind of attacks on Chinese civilians.
“Europeans are “soft” on terrorists and keen on human rights and other non-senses, not because they are overly nice people but because they are trying to own up to and repent their imperial past when non-European native people were sometimes eaten as food.”
No, as if other people have less reasons to do penance. There are no single people which never suppressed anyone and never annihilated anyone, because thats a human feature, to expand and replace others. And if they can’t remember in the last 1.000 years, as a rule of thumb, that’s because they were at the lighter end of the scale, not because they were so ethical. Because if there were any truly altruistic people which would never harm anyone, they would have died out in a second. Like the Christian issue would have solved itself if they would have stayed a doomsday sect which refused to procreate, like the Skopzen did ad extremum.
The Europeans were, more often than not, fairly nice everything considered, at least for people in a situation of absolute cultural dominance. Could have been much, much more brutal without their moral standards. But if you rule, there is no gratitude once you lost control over a client. Rarely there is, regardless of what you do.
The worst atrocities which happened were the result of a few doing crimes, like it always happens, again among all people which can abuse their power.
So Europeans act they do because of their old moral standards and Christian base, but so completely self-destructive now because they got brainwashed by Cultural Marxist indoctrination in the last decades. And the Plutocracy and their menials, which pushed this agenda, wants a new world order under the $, once and for all.
They don’t care for the future of the European people, but see the European nations as a threat even, because they are still powerful and might still opt out of THAT corporate new world order. So instead of caring for the European people, they want to sell their Capitalist model and control state to the whole world, one world under $ is the goal.
They are nice to Sunni Islamists, because they think they can control and abuse them, like I said, like a toy & tool.
No wonder they want to destroy Shia Iran, they build high end weapon systems on their own. Instead they prefer to pamper corrupt sheiks which buy American weapon systems which they can deactivate and the Arabs can’t even repair themselves. Make me laugh. If they wouldn’t have allowed the mass immigration, Islamism would pose no threat to anyone, but since they did, they made it an issue everywhere.
But what do you think this “elite” would do if the Sunni Islamists would pose a real, concrete threat to anything they care for? I give you a hint: They would nuke them! Without hesitation.
This is nothing about playing nice, that crap they sell to the European people, because they should be on board of the Capitalist ship they pilot. Make a caste like heterogenous society with a middle class which is completely dependent from their good will and doesn’t want to slide down to the masses in poverty. A caricature of the Brazilian model, just with a somewhat higher living standard for the average.
Even climate change being used to deteriorate the living conditions of the people, so that the social pressure can be increased.
Its amazing how the people eat the American propaganda lies and always look for the bad guys elsewhere. Truly amazing. Look back at the reports about the Syrian war around the presidential election, how they portrayed Assad and Russia vs. “the freedom fighters”.
The media industry in the West is now completely phased and censored. Yes, in theory other opinions can be told, that’s still good, but how long? And the mass of the people doesn’t get to that other perspectives anyway, so for elections thats as good as a state controlled communication, just that it is largely money and secret service controlled.
The internet is the last resort and they try to cut it down too, make it to a similarly dull channel of communication like TV again. But yes, China is so bad…
If they would allow the American media industry to control their people, they would lose their dignity and independence, fall into chaos. They could live more free, yes, but only if the USA would be a different hegemon. Since they are not, they have to defend themselves, they have no other choice if they want to save their people and nation. Same goes for the Uyghur issue.
Its a pity, but if you allow the hegemon to creep into your communication, you surrender to it, you lose your independent decision making.
Look at Europe, every crap from the Cultural Marxist agenda being introduced by the mass media and institutions from the USA. Even if they don’t fit into the European system and conflicts at all, they copy every nonsense! Its like they can’t think on their own. And why is this? Because we are not independent.
If the Russians, Chinese and Indians want to stay independent, they have to be more authoritarian, that’s a dilemma actually, because you can’t get out that easily. Even if they want, they can’t just “open up”. Russia did once, under Yelzin. Look at what happened! They suffer from this failure to this day! That’s a historical lesson to learn. The US geostrategical plans are directed against any large competitor. It doesn’t matter whether this competitor is democratic or not. That’s official policy. But no nation is better at this propaganda and manipulation wars, in the economy and media in particular. Even harder to win.
If humanitäre would have the choice between uncontrolled Capitalism, Cultural Marxism, radical Islam and the Chinese model, the Chinese model is definitely and by far the best.
Perhaps we have different meanings for the term “the Chinese model” but I think Tanner Greer has a more realistic view of Xi Jinping and China’s really existing socialism:
Reflections on China’s Stalinist Heritage I: A Tyrant’s Toolkit
Reflections on China’s Stalinist Heritage II: Just How Totalitarian is Modern China?
@obs
Japanese were essentially in the same position. They thought they were defending Asia from European colonialism; if they don’t invade China someone else will. The massacres by Japanese troops are slightly worse than the current and recent Chinese oppression but they are of the same kind.
The biggest fallacy of your “argument” is that Chinese have some sort of legitimacy in those lands. It is not like Chinese(please… no kidding, this means Han Chinese for the rest of the world, no BS about minority stuff) have been living with the natives for thousands of years or even hundreds. Manchuria, Tibet, Shinjang are all completely foreign lands occupied by Chinese in the 20th century.
Just get out of there and your problem is solved, your self-annointed role as the overseer of East Asia is not going to be appreciated by anyone outside of China. You actually called your Manchurian overlords “foreign devils” until you changed your mind later after seeing all the lands they had conquered, that could be of great additions to your densely populated lands.
It is like India claiming Canada as her land because the British Empire ruled both.
P.S. The state sponsored Han Chinese immigration completely invalidates your argument.
To compare what China does now with what happened in WW2 is far fetched. I see no justification for such an accusation.
Otherwise there are usually no good guys in such conflicts. The Chinese have the choice between an independent super power or a dependent client states of the current hegemon, like Germany and Japan after the last round.
I hope both China and the USA get better with systemic reforms, but I doubt it.
As for the Uyghurs, they should have tried to make the best possible compromise with the Chinese. They wont let them go and I’m sorry for those which are no radical Islamists and just want more freedom.
But nobody wants them to be independent, not China, Russia or India, or the moderate muslim neighbours with their own Islamism, corrupt political system and minorities. Everybody knows the Islamists would just flood an independent Uyghur state. This would become very ugly and destabilise the whole macro-region.
Not even most Western nations want to endanger the silk road and stability of Central Asia. One Afghanistan is enough for everybody. The Uyghurs would only become a major issue if the US administration would be on a high level conflict, even warpath with China imho.
@obs
What about Tibet? Are they any threat? Inner Mongolia? Manchuria? Your apology for China fails at almost every angle. Of course China makes phony excuses for each of these. Tibet? Indian threat. Inner Mongolia and Manchuria?, Russian threat. But it is just pure imperialism stretching all the way back to Rome and Han China.
When you win, you gloat “Might is right”; when you lose, you sob and appeal for the sanctity of humanity. You may lose one more time in the future and when that time comes nobody can stop another Subetai removing all Chinese from “their pasture lands”.
You would have come across as an honest person at least if you had just said “Japanese bad, Chinese good”. That is the whole content of your 10 page long “essay”.
I would never say that, because for a start like you put it, might is right and everybody just tries to survive and thrive.
The Liberal and Cultural Marxist propaganda is just either dumb or hyocritical more than others.
Its not like any of the regions you mentioned was developed and had a rational system. In fact all of these people exterminated others and had their own aspirations for a big empire. They just didnt succeed.
The Chinese and the Japanese are truly great nations with an excellent genetic and cultural base which made great civilisational progress in the last century with all ups and downs considered.
I’m an European and Europe is my primary concern. Right now Europeans being threatened the most by our hegemons ambitions for world control under a plutocratic system.
The Uyghurs had more of their old ways and higher birth rates than we have. We have mass immigration channeled by supranational laws which starts to replace our people and most are not even as productive and peaceful as the Chinese are.
So I truly feel with the Uyghurs and Tibetans on that sense, because I largely have the same feeling if looking at our cities, politics and economy.
You might say we are free, yes, in a way, but not independent nor can we secure the future of our people.
They didnt put us in reeducation Camp forever, but our whole societal system became one big Cultural Marxist indoctrination.
So the only hope we have is that either the hegemon weakens, changes its policy domestic and abroad, or has to listen more to the needs of his clients at least.
We saw the devastating results after the end of the Cold War: Economic degradation, reduction of the welfare state and social cohesion, hyper-aggressive anti-social propaganda and the accelerated mass immigration, with large portions of highly problematic immigrant groups coming in ever faster. At the same time a drop in birth rates since the 1990s like after the introduction of the pill.
In four generations native Europeans will be, if that doesnt stop, demographically dead. That’s like a genocide.
Now imagine what the Plutocracy and their think tanks would come up with if they had no competitor of significance any more? So we need a strong Russia and China even if they are not in every respect nicer than the USA, because power nTo compare what China does now with what happened in WW2 is far fetched. I see no justification for such an accusation.
Otherwise there are usually no good guys in such conflicts. The Chinese have the choice between an independent super power or a dependent client states of the current hegemon, like Germany and Japan after the last round.
I hope both China and the USA get better with systemic reforms, but I doubt it.
As for the Uyghurs, they should have tried to make the best possible compromise with the Chinese. They wont let them go and I’m sorry for those which are no radical Islamists and just want more freedom.
But nobody wants them to be independent, not China, Russia or India, or the moderate muslim neighbours with their own Islamism, political system and minorities. Everybody knows the Islamists would just flood and independent Uyghur state, this would become very ugly and destabilise the whole macro-region.
Not even most Western nations want to endanger the silk road and stability of Central Asia. One Afghanistan is enough for everybody. The Uyghurs would only become a major issue if the US administration would be on a high level conflict, even warpath with China imho.eeds control and balance.
And the Oligarchy of the USA is much too powerful already, especially of they do what they do.
Of the USA become either fully Cultural Marxist or an open Oligarchy police state, both is possible right now, or some sort of perverted combination like in mild form already with Neoliberalism, then the rest of the World must resist.
The USA can do better, they could change. But the path they were going in the last decades is doomed.
Let’s see what the next elections will bring. If Trump goes and a puppet of the Plutocracy with a Cultural Marxist Agenda for the leftist partisans comes into Office, thats it. Good night.
Even a honest leftist might make a positive difference in comparison, but they wont make it to the candidature anyway. Another puppet will ruin it and Trump has to deliver of getting a second chance. He sold the Palestinians to get it, let’s hope that wasnt in vain.
In a strange way parts of my last posts combined. Anyway, what was lost is that political power needs control. If the USA becomes the sole hegemon, its Oligarchy will become even more ruthless at home and abroad. That was the worst part of the end of the Cold War.
An undisputed hegemon doesnt listen to its clients interests any longer and gets ever more arrogant. That was very bad for Americans, Europeans and the rest of the World. An arrogant and corrupted Oligarchy always is.
That’s also because the Oligarchy was the product of Capitalist competition. But politics should be a more independent instance for the good of the state and its people. What it is definitely not in the United States.
@Roger: I read the piece about China and by the authors standards, American style Cultural Marxism is more totalitarian than China.
He is right, true Totalitarism tries to get his grip on all areas of life and you become a thought criminal for what you say and do in private. The private is political – thats what young Cultural Marxists said in the 1960s already when attacking traditional gender roles and family structures. Many were fans of Mao by the way!
How many formerly private and conservative aspects of life were politicised by a state abused for the Cultural Marxist Agenda?
Where is the truth in politics, the media industry, even in science?
If talking about racial and sex differences, studies from Russia and China are more factual and outspoken than the vast majority of papers produced in the West.
Obvious truths, facts obvious to any person with minimum intelligence and common sense are still the hallmarks in Russia and China, but no longer “in the West”.
And even if opposing political correctness is still possible and not completely criminalised by law, there is the PC mob out there which will try to ruin you personally on every level if you speak out, like during the Cultural revolution.
We can vote, but most elections being manipulated because the “free press” became a joke.
The new generation of cultural Marxists at Campus is much more radical in their approach to completely erradicate those which dont agree with them. Getting into the minds of every baby even with new educational measures.
They promise the poor and minorities better social care, like described with Communist alliances, but that this was a core subject of their goals is long gone.
Now they play out one victimised group against another and all against their own ethnicity in a trial to get totalitaian social control.
The Chinese government cares for the future of its people and is more independent from Capitalist mechanisms. Both a good thing.
The US were better, now they are no longer and it still goes downward. Funny how sometimes biased descriptions of other people can best describe the own shortcomings.
At least relatively China improved and the USA deteriorated. Even if its about free speech and free thought.
@obs
You are extremely childish and immature. Europeans did not exterminate Asians, not because they were nice but because that was not the most profitable route. Much the same way Mongols did not exterminate Chinese to extract taxes from them.
During the course of the history East Asians probably could have exterminated Europeans if that was the only purpose of life for them. Avars show very strict racial stratification along the male lines. Mongols could have done too. It would have been difficult.
But likewise Europeans did not really acquire the means to exterminate the hugely populous East Asians until the late 19th century or so. But by then there were competing European powers, which makes the whole proposition a comical imagination of a 5 year old that characterizes most of your writing. They wanted much more from Asia, why would they forgo all these money making opportunities?
I don’t think Europeans are particularly bad people but neither are they any special in moral dispostion. Neither is Christianity a forgiving religion. Alms was a special feature of the early Christianity and as B Russell noted it helped to spread the religion. But like other religons developed in that region, Judaism and Islam, it is the most beligerant, xenophobic and genocidal religion in the world.
And finally Chinese and Japanese are not great people; they are just people.
Let me put it differently: Which people did the Europeans “exterminate” at all deliberately?
If they surrendered? Not diseases or during Guerilla wars, but real mass executions without mercy? They were much more lenient than most people were in a similar position mainly because of Christianity, secondly because of economic rationality.
In later times some of the first things Europeans did was to build hospitals. A lot of the colonies especially in Africa costed more than they brought profits.
American Dollar Imperialism is far more profitable after the European colonial empires were cut into pieces for the corporations.
You just corrupt the elites and take the resources. But no responsibility for the local people and the infrastructure which being build on depths. Everything paid and financed with your Dollars you can “print” like you want.
And most of the dissatisfied Africans move to Europe, not the USA. So even these costs and troubles externalised.
The Chinese have a different approach with real and trustworthy state organised partnerships from which either side can profit. More direct influence, but more in exchange too.
Your comments on Christianity make no sense and are superficial imho. But this would be an even longer debate.
Obs, I really should have asked this in a previous thread but what do you mean by “Cultural Marxism”? I have the feeling that it is the idea that the most important reality is that the world is full of groups oppressing other groups. That’s where all the important problems come from. In classical Marxism, it was capitalists/bourgeoisie oppressing workers/proletariat. In Cultural Marxism, it is whites oppressing non-whites, men oppressing women, straights oppressing gays, etc.
It seems to me that there are very few people who subscribe to that ideology. For even most social justice warriors, what is going on is the feeling that “we should help the less fortunate. That’s what good people do.”
Of course, Toynbee said Marxism was a Christian heresy.
The founders of Marxism (Marx and Engels) were secular Jews which constructed a materialist ideology build upon Ur-Christian social morale. The construct was very strict and is absolutely not the same as Socialism, let alone social movements, of which existed different concepts at the time before Marx & Engels came up with their theory.
The main difference was an obvious grudge on European culture itself and the very notion of not trying to repair the existing society but to destroy and overcome it. Like not just limit exploitation and improve life of the poor and their chances to prove themselves, but to create “equality” by destroying economic privileges and everything preserving or just representing the idea of social inequality.
Yet Marx & Engels were children of the 19th century Europe. They might hated much of it, but their concepts were not much impacted by psychological and more general cultural considerations which came up later.
When Bolshevism came to power in Russia and the full scale revolution failed in Germany, conservative and right extremism had regrouped and became dominant, in the Frankfurt School Marxists began to shift their focus and incorporate Freudian and psychological, as well as cultural concepts. It is important to note that this happened before National Socialism came to power AND it was a development in the West, largely independent from the Eastern Communists. There were extremists from the psychological side like Wilhelm Reich which produced theories some subsume under Freudo-Marxism. This became very popular in the 68s movements.
When Hitler came to power, almost all of them went to the United States. There their concepts became even more Western adapted and more individualist. Yet the goal was the same: Destroy traditional Europe and create “equality”.
They began to focus on the concept of the “authoritarian personality” and what kind of society should be created to prevent it.
They became highly influential in the US academic world and their concepts played a major role in the Western reeducation of Germans. E.g. the early reeducation was the most radical, they focused on the destruction of the husbands authority in the family.
When the Cold War began, those programs were cut and a more conservative and appealing propaganda for the Germans emerged.
But for a lot of “intellectuals” the Genie was out of the bottle. They wanted to completely erradicate the reason for “Fascism” and for them everything which isnt culturally Marxist became “Fascism”, even cultural norms present in all higher cultures, probably in most human societies.
But they lacked the power to do this societal “transformation”, so they started to network. A very bIG push came with the break of many Marxist intellectuals with Stalinism. When they realised he became antisemitic and conservative, they began to hate him too, but didnt lose hope for the Eastern system. When the Stalinist atrocities became apparent and could no longer be ignored, they had to shift.
Part of this was the theory of Totalitarism. They said “we are the most anti-authoritarian, that proves our concepts are the best to prevent new Totalitarism”.
The fun thing is they are so obsessed with “authority” that they are ready to create a totalitarian society to prevent what they say is Totalitarism for them. Its a scam to get the power for the social engineering they always wanted.
The shift from Stalinism was particularly strong in France, where there was a very strong Communist movement and “artists and intellectuals were very much Marxists. Now Ehen they had to change and under influence of the Frankfurt School, they came up with Constructivism and Cultural Studies which focused on “power relations”.
Classic Marxism focused on economich materialism, Cultural Marxism wants to destroy “thoughts of inequality” and tries to persuade people to follow by either creating the status of guilt or victim based on social categories they say are social and cultural constructs. Yet though they say they are constructs, they are treated as a fixed reality.
Its always about classic European “normality” and ideals vs those “suppressed by these norms and “relations of power”.
There is no limit to categories they might invent or start to use for this game of playing against each other.
The intellectual trick Cultural Marxism uses is that everything is relative, everything is a construct and perspective dependent but their own starting point for their idea of an totalitarian egalitarism.
If you prove that what they say is factually wrong in a concrete case, they just start to question your motives (Freudo-Marxism inspired) and methods (constructs, there is no objective truth humans can realise) and proceed with their social engineering.
Failures and mismanagement which question the very existent of whole states, people and societies don’t matter, because the overarching commonality and goal is the very extinction of everything even remotely “Fascist” or just conservative, traditiinal in the world.
Europeans as the most powerful people are the primary target right now, but it won’t stop once they became degraded. Until the whole world is under the total equality Regime.
Therefore it doesnt matter what African Americans or Hispanic American people REALLY want, because they are just a mean to the greater goal of the equality terror.
Like “intellectual Marxists” and political leaders cared shit for what the European workers and peasants really wanted. They just wanted to have them on their side.
And with workers movements you have troubles with the Plutocracy and the there is no steam behind it, they are often more conservative than those indoctrinated on Campus!
So they operate with as many particular identities as possible. Intersectionality is the end of any organically grown social unity. You can outpkay anybody one way or another.
The totality of the concept makes it more dangerous than classic Marxism, because it leaves in consequence no space to breath any more.
At the same time its tendency to downplayed facts in favour of feelings (guilt : oppression) it is compatible with Capitalism, even radical Capitalism. Because its a lot about social engineering, internationalism and personal education and discipline.
So you can have Cultural Marxist courses in Capitalist-exploitative multi-national corporations. That’s Neoliberalism.
An unlikely union of the too worst creatures of the West: Uncontrolled Capitalism and Marxism.
The Capitalists agreed to leave the socio-cultural engineering to the Cultural Marxists, as long as they don’t touch their property and financial power.
They even spread hand in hand now. The true victims are all aspects of life which have no value in either Capitalism or Cultural Marxism.
Now I don’t know if they at one point will collide, but so far not.
America became the very world base for this ugly alliance of big money and Cultural Marxism. This is a problematic relationship, but it hold so far. The Idealist cultural Marxists, which don’t just betray their partisans, think that the complete change will come eventually, when society was re-engineered by education and speech-thought control.
So it might come to a Showdown eventually, when their common enemies seem to be utterly destroyed or the hypocrisy and lies for keeping the alliance with the Oligarchy become unbearable.
Its sometimes best to let those speak I am talking about themselves, even if I despise them so much. Especially one central figure of the Frankfurt School which managed to transform Marxism into the Cultural Marxism we now from our times, most prominently in the form of “political correctness”, Herbert Marcuse:
Because of their or better their apologets and later scholars collaboration with the American Oligarchy, you now have managers in big corporations taking courses in “how to prevent discrimination and increase efficiency in a multicultural business environment” or “raising male employees awareness of daily sexism and gender inequality” or similar stuff, while at the same time exploiting thousands and millions for shareholders and maximising profits, ruining social cohesion, being careless of their role in society as a whole.
Now that’s not what they had in mind, but that’s the American compromise, with the worst of both worlds, Capitalism and Marxism. But the tension is not going away, because its a foul compromise if Cultural Marxism being used for social discipline in a Neoliberal Capitalism and on the other side Capitalist companies spread Cultural Marxist propaganda. Its a American created oxymoron if any of the two being taken seriously. But so far they got only puppets on top and suffering the most was the middle class, especially the white middle class male, being made responsible for everything and pushed down by the system. The very top level Plutocrats made no personal compromises and gained even more wealth and power in this perverted system. But like I said, an ugly American alliance which might not hold forever, just long enough to destroy Western civilisation and the European people, possibly threaten humanity with its irrationality and corruption respectively.