W W W W  World Wide Web Witness Inc.  Home Page   Contents Page for Volume  What is New




Dance of the Cats and Mice ...

Shrinking Cats, Growing Mice ?


China and Nukes, Taiwan and Truth


News 354,

The  New York Times, Friday, July 15, 2005


John Howard has expressed the view that a common-sense attitude may pervade matters affecting
the joint US and Chinese skies (which, after all, are joined at the top, and can interact below).

Undoubtedly this is an irenic word.

Not all the words spoken, however, have been of this type.



Thus in The New York Times, July 15 of this year, one finds what ABC News Radio reported in timely fashion: an utterance. Reportedly it is of Chinese origin. So much is this so, that the report actually attaches the words in question, at which we shall shortly arrive, to no lesser a being than Major General Zhu Chenghu, and no less an occasion, than that of an official briefing.

We must at once, and even before examining the reported utterance, be clear that the General emphasised that the views in question were his own personal ones*1, not official policy; for as The New York Times correspondent indicates, "Beijing has long insisted that it will not initiate the use of nuclear weapons in any conflict."

Hitler, likewise, had only amicable intentions towards Russia, as was so very clear that he actually said so, some months before invading. In fact, he made a treaty as well. However, he did not see fit to keep it, a little later, in a surprise attack on Russia, costing some millions of lives, and reportedly  involving various disreputable experiments on human life.

When however, an official of high standing at an official briefing says something of an acutely important political character, in a government of RULE by politics, one can be sure that he was not merely suffering from a fit of verbosity at the level of World War, but that the thing was duly contrived as a part of a political whole. Many whose words do not suit, find their positions in China do not suit either; and departures follow suit.

What then was this utterance of the aforesaid General ? It was this. In his personal view, it is reported, there is a situation, a scenario, a casus belli which can be stated. Let us suppose that the US should 'draw their missiles and position-guided ammunition onto the target zone on China's territory', to use the terminology of the report in the Times, what then ? The General outlined such a possibility.

First however, one would enquire WHY such an idea was announced. After all, one would not normally tell a neighbour that if he saw fit to point a gun at one's window, one would reply but such and such responses. It would seem unnecessary, even perhaps a trifle provocative!

Apparently, a later paragraph shows, the General conceives, like many in China, that for some reason Taiwan may be deemed Chinese territory. Hitler felt the same about Austria, for were not many Germans in that land ? The notable anschluss resulted, which summarily defined, meant that Germany took over, shall we say, the rule of Austria. This had, of course, some little results, such as automatically placing Austria into World War II when that time came, as it did very soon thereafter, in fact during the following year.

Very well, we are apparently to conceive that an economy, a nation, a political entity composed notably of those who from the first advent of the departing Chinese, after the civil war that had raged for long before and for some time after World War II in that land, have been enemies of the communist totalitarian government which took over in China at that post-war time,  is in some way already a part of one of the two contestants. The one would seem to be clearly fixed in the mind of the General who spoke. It appears that he thinks that appropriate member of the two who had the civil war, is the mainland one. The reason for such a view is not apparent, and does not at least appear to be have dwelt on...

The economy, the nation, the political entity in view is Taiwan, which happens to be the sole residual China occupied by the Party which left the mainland. Hence it appears that it is held that although it is not held, it should be conceived as if it were so, and were in some way to be provided for the mainland part. By war it gained the larger part, and now by threat it seems it wants to induce the minor part, and all the nations who watch, to conceive that it really needs the rest as well, as a gift, rather like a bonus.

However, a bonus is usually granted for superior performance; whereas it is Taiwan which has provided the vastly superior performance, in terms of living standards, at the economic level, and in terms of democratic freedom, which even if not entirely perfect, contrasts markedly with whatever may be conceived in that field, for the mainland. The bonus, one might have thought, if there were to be one - and parties who have warred do not usually give a bonus to the aggressor - would be for Taiwan for superior performance to mind and mouth, not to mention spirit (if you consider the Falun Gong affair on the mainland).

Nor in the matter of youth would the mainland government seem exceptionally obvious for a post-war bonus, when one considers the Tiananmen Square feature, the failure of the moderate and compassionate  Zhao Ziyang, though Party Secretary, and his long continued placement under house arrest, possibly for having heart in the affair, relative to the young.

Such things do not seem to show any cardinal need for a bonus in the form of the sole residual part of China not under Communist absolutist, totalitarian, pragmatic rule.

Reverting then to the Civil War, and the Nationalists' strong commitment to fighting it, as distinct from going the Communist way, deep into the interior, this time had seen the Nationalist forcers greatly eroded, naturally enough, and when the Communists after the war, won with their fresh forcers, they took most of China. Despite this, and contrary to the equities which might be inherent in any division of territories, the part, the small part, the efficient and progressive part, the richer and more prosperous part, the freer part, one now called Taiwan is in some way or manner, conceived as Chinese territory. Such is certainly a point of view, though its rational base is conspicuously lost in obscurity.

There is of course another basis for such a view, and this is the one which appears to have been expressed by Major General Zhu Chenghu, in his purely personal divulgement, shall we call it, of his opinion. The reasoning seemed to be this. Taiwan is our territory (reason for view at any rational level, unknown). We do not want to be stopped making our view becoming a ocean view from the Island of Taiwan, as OURS. If you think otherwise for any reason, we will regard your interference in this international foray by mainland China, the part that gained this mainland by force alone, into the other part, as intolerable. We wish to persuade you by making you become aware that any ideas, ideologies or containment policies which you may have, envisage or entertain, would be dealt with, not to be sure by the force of reason, by but bombs.

In case this does not prove to be a sufficient deterrent, to alien thoughts, that is, to thoughts which differ from the ones which we have, here, on the mainland, or more precisely, the ones which the General shared with the world via the news medium, then let it be known that the force, once again, not of reason, but of a material kind, would be nuclear in nature. In case, however, this too fails to render  to your thoughts a certain persuasiveness, as to the correctness of our intention, let it be known, further, and furthermore, that the bombs in question, nuclear as afore noted, would be placed on US cities.

When  all of this is distilled, where do we find ourselves, then,  following the edict, or opinion, or threat, or challenge, or sharing of thoughts, or whatever else it may be conceived to be, when a Communist leaders shares the unexpurgated contents of personal opinion, without having the effluvia of the WHOLE make it correct ?

Let us proceed. First, having digested the point that despite the manner of the arising of the Chinese people's retreat from Communism in Taiwan, namely in war, it is felt that having lost that island to the summary powers of Communism, the mainland aggressor still conceives that that Island is its own. Now it took the mainland by pure force;  and it has not taken the Island by force; but without the force which alone gave it the mainland, it conceives that the Island is ALREADY its own.

This appears a most special form of thought, since if force out of the barrel of a gun is what counts (not life in the heart of the people who make guns, for some odd reason, since they can make other things as well, such as peace, and sense of things), then how is an Island which has not been gained out of the barrel of a gun, already the possession of those who put their trust in such things ? It is an enigma, but when force is  your goal, god or directive, perhaps the force of reason is discounted. Certainly, it does not appear even  relevant here.

It is of course often easier to do this sort of thing verbally than militarily, and it has all the appearance of intimidation, as do the missiles which reportedly in no secret manner, point themselves at Taiwan FROM the mainland, what is the term ? ah yes so that they "draw their missiles and position-guided ammunition onto the target zone". It seems then that China has done this very thing to the part of China not yet taken by pure force, if such force could ever be pure, and objects to anyone else imitating her. There is a certain division it seems,  in this pointing of  missiles: China alone can do it, or should do it. However, it is unclear why anyone should do anything, when force and matter are the supposed basis of all thing!

That however is just one of the problems of moralising Communism*1, and it is always present when they do the same sort of thing to students who think, pointing out to them that prison is a force, and they must bow to it, and that wall newspapers are a force, and they must cease, since the force that puts in prison is able to stop the force which puts up wall type, newspapers. The absence of reason seems no impediment, and after all,  a gun cannot think.  One must not expect too much when this is the rule, the ritual and the species of thought in view.

Still, let us review what we find. Missiles then are a substitute for thought; and they may be pointed by one nation, mainland China, against another, not yet subdued by that participant in the Civil War, namely Taiwan.

Which missiles ? why the ones of the Communist sector of the Chinese people, who have taken to themselves without voter approval, the mainland, the very ones which reportedly point in no small numbers at Taiwan, that sovereign territory of the Chinese people, non-Communist, the free enterprise and more democratic sector of that great nation.

Could it then be that there is a general principle here ? It is felt by this General, at least by report, that this sort of thing will not do, it cannot or should not be done. It is felt to be so far into the very fabric of war, to point such missiles, that is, if anyone other than the mainland China sector should engage in such pointing, it would be a warlike act, to be met by force, which was the method of getting the mainland in the first place.

This, it seems to be suggested, is the way in which one would react if anyone did this to one's territory; but it seems to be extended to the view, that this is also the way one would react even when it is not one's territory which is in view (that is, the view of the missiles), but that of another sector of political opinion of the Chinese, who have taken over the island. This was done in order to have some remnant for the nation, in such a viewpoint and preference, as liberty, democracy, and non-suppression by a religion of force which does not have the advantage or force to verify its claims in history, and perhaps needs to gain them ... well, by force.

After all, Communism was not the voted or historic government of the land, so it is not entirely too hard to imagine that some people would prefer some liberty with their lives, so that the government of their spiritual lives (as is so affably being imposed, by report, to the Falun Gong), might not be by some people or other with some ideas or other about their own importance. The people whom they do not feel to be appropriate for doing this sort of thing, why, they are the very same, the other part in the Civil War, the part that grabbed most of the territory: the Communist phase of the population, who did not after all CHOOSE the Communist sort of idea*2, just as, for that matter, the mainland Chinese did not CHOOSE it either. It does not appear that anyone asked them!



As to Taiwan, what do they think ? They do not think as does mainland China. They elected a President who most decidedly has other thoughts. If there is a time and a place for things, then it would be a good time when the cultural and economic ties between, the kindred character which may arise in both places at some time in the future, for thought of any such union. As this is not now, neither does now seem the time! Marriages are like that. Rape is entirely different - the 'force' version of the thing. It is not normally approved, and it IS hard of the maiden, to say no more. Nor does it encourage love, which, as you see from the LOVE of LIBERTY which so many scientist shared in World War II, leading to Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory,  and the Mexican marvel, is stronger than force.

It seems that despite the Islanders, the Taiwanese very clearly stated preference to continue as they are, having yielded the mainland, without being hounded out of their island, or taken over by those of this absolutist sort of persuasion, there are those in mainland China who entertain quite different wishes concerning their destiny.

Hitler was just the same, as was Napoleon. They have their little ideas, and having an army, often have yielded to the temptation to present them, not by successful engagement in thought, but by an entire irrelevance, by some sort of blowing up, such as missiles signify. It does not seem very constructive, rational or helpful; but there it is. It proves immensely costly, and cuts things about; and now that the boys have bigger bombs, of course, the world grows somewhat more interested, as there is a limit to the damage you can do to this wonderfully created world, before like a bombed automobile, it does not go. That - it is not to say that it would not survive for a time as a WRECK, and you have just the same sort of thing in cars: it is just that it would not 'go' in the sense of being livable. That is all. 

However force has its little ways, whether in the hands of this or that delusional doctrine, dogma or set of devotees.

History is very often just like that, and the reason is not far to be sought.

It is because


the Prince of Peace having been slain (Isaiah Chs. 9:7, 53),
as predicted, and the date predicted, in the Bible,
and for the reason predicted (Isaiah 42,49, 50-55),
in that source book for coming events
(cf. SMR Ch. 9, Highway of Holiness Ch. 4),
which unlike the Communist model and case DOES verify itself (cf. SMR pp. 925ff.),
and that continually;


and the modern world, increasingly acting
as a fiddler, prancer, dancer and lancer

(not always at the same time, though since it is large,
different sections can indulge in one or the other at the same time),


rather than a follower of verified truth from the validating source (SMR Chs. 1,3,5,10):


this same world is moving further and further from Him who made it, provided its conditions,
and the ways of its health, not to say holiness: so that ...

there CAN be no peace.

Whether it fiddles with vacuous and irrational philosophies, having World War II betimes, for the sheer love of it, or prances wth Kaiseresque horses and company, for the sheer exultant survival of it all, or dances with the deliriums of New Age thought power in strange ways hanging about in the atmosphere, though not really measurable or itemisable in any rational manner,  or lances with Zeros as Pearl Harbour, it does not really achieve much. It merely shows that while truth is one (it does not change, and continues its impeccable self-demonstration in the Bible, year by year, historical work by historical change), error is multitudinous. You pay for your play.

As to Communism, then, in the perspective of the passing years, and the claims being made for its proper stall: It is not a matter of being unfortunate, immoral, unethical, bellicose ONLY, though all of the last three are indeed relevant. Rather is it a matter of disproportion and unscientific carelessness in the ultimate matters of spiritual health which lead to man being this or that, and hence desiring this or that, and hence doing this or that. Increasingly in this generation, this is the case. Moreover, this trend is a gross reality, where Biblical Christianity is in view. Indeed, if we call it 'THIS', then the world is going for 'THAT'!

The atomic bomb was very costly therapy for Japan's grab, whatever its more refined additives, and Lancasters helped Germany to find time to think about racial superiority; and so the efforts of liberty stall the thrust of mere political push, backed by illusion. How many more such incidents are needed ? Of course, biblically, there is coming one who will make a very fair job of getting control, the antichrist, the man of sin (II Thessalonians 2), but he will be very religious, so much so that he will find out that he is god, before his unrealism short-circuiting before the One who is, he is destroyed. That is the final Hiroshima, if you will, the lesson for the world, which is to come!

Meanwhile, despite the "ERROR, GO BACK" sign, prominently, indeed conspicuously displayed, the world goes on, laughing in its cups, or weeping in maudlin moments of semi-realisation of its follies. Its increasing pursuit of knowledge, which Daniel 12 predicted for the end of this Age, makes its follies the mother of more forlorn, aggrieved, or even dismembered bodies, and its children increasingly spiritually illiterate.

In fact, the aggravation of the insult to God, progressively being achieved in endless false and inaccurate religions which disdain test and are not even structured to testable realities, has results. It means the aggravation of the insults traded from one to the other, among God's increasingly disordered creatures, such as man: with no good results. When you remove a principle, as in logic, there are ... errors; and when in addition, you remove The Principal, then the 'school' becomes disorderly, and bullies and the like, take undue place. This is increasingly the norm.

The world, unfortunately for it - but it has had opportunities galore - is under the illusion that because Christ died (for sinners who receive Him, acting as their substitute, along the of Old Testament sacrifices, which availed when received by faith for the ones who proceeded to them cf. Deuteronomy 29, Leviticus 4, Hebrews 9-10), He therefore will not be too concerned about justice. The case is PRECISELY the opposite. HE DIED BECAUSE He insisting on being just, and hence, wishing  in love to absolve whom He with integrity might (Colossians 1:19ff., John 10), and to satisfy justice in the process of pardon, He died with a FORCE of TRUTH. This, and this alone, could absolve before the just God whose eternal Word He was and is. This is all most clearly stated in Romans 3:23ff..

God the Father provided for it, and Christ did it, this dying for sinners,


"in order that He might be just and the justifier of him who believes in Jesus."

That holy justice is not balked by such an action, but satisfied by it. Without it, there would have been no need to die. With it, not only does Christ die to cover the sins of MANY (Matthew 26:28), but not of those who do not believe He is the Messiah (John 8:24): even He who has come from His eternity in Heaven so to act, but He then acts to judge the sins of all (John 17:1ff., 8:58, 6:62ff, 5:19ff., Acts 17:31).

Those not covered are subject to TRUTH (Romans 2:1ff., Psalm 2), and they are warned to change their ways, and to receive Him, in that Psalm. Justice never bows, and even when mercy pays, it proceeds, met, not dislocated, not in the very least!

What then do we find concerning Taiwan in such a world ?

Having, then, established that Taiwan is relevant to the Chinese General's utterance, in that it is being conceived for some reason as being China's territory, or more to the point, that of the Communist Government currently in force in occupied China, we find more understanding of his proposition. After all, it would be decidedly unpleasant to have Russian missiles pointed at the US, or US ones at Russia, and the contingency that this is precisely what happened for decades, this does not at all remove its unpleasantness. Similarly, the possibility that Chinese missiles are, for safety's sake, or to cover contingencies, pointed at US already, does of course exist.

No one can doubt that missile pointing is unpleasant, if it is to one's own territory, but how does this affect the case before us, that of Taiwan ?

To what purpose then is this oratory of the General ? It would seem from The Times report, that he has engaged in a series of propositions, underlying his discourse. They seem to be like this:


1) Taiwan is territory belonging to the Chinese Government currently in power.


2) Any action to point anything in this direction, whether to offend, defend or amend,
would be taken as decidedly hostile.


3) If the Chinese government, in the goodness or other, of its heart,
sought to annex Taiwan to its power coverage,
then it would like no one to intervene, to rescue, interfere,
or do whatever else it might be conceived that this would be.


4) Indeed, its liking for this liberty, to which, unlike that accorded in spiritual terms
to its own people on the mainland, it is a thing so great,
that it does not want anyone to interfere with it:
not even if that liberty in which it finds such value
(in this, like the Taiwanese),
be used to remove someone else's liking for liberty, or at least, the liberty they, in turn, so like.


 Further, it appears they are, or at least the General is, decidedly averse,
even if it is not to defend its own liberty in its own now controlled mainland,
but to amend the liberty in a negative fashion, for someone else
with decidedly different desires,
and different outcome in mind, for its liberty.


5) Don't touch me while I touch them! might seem to sum it up.


6) If however, and here is the interesting addition, if anyone should be so misled, so beguiled,
so bemused, so indifferent to ... well, to Chinese Communist power ...
as to proceed with such interest in protecting or otherwise acting
in the situation of assault by the Communists in this area,
then there would be proportionate consequences.


It seems then that the desire is for their own liberty, as also
for the loss of that of the people of Taiwan,
and for the non-exercise of that of the United States, or presumably anyone else,
who should feel, as did the world for Poland in 1938,
some sort of concern as squashing peoples.


There seems therefore to be a certain monolithic kind of construction
of the phenomenon of liberty, in mind, a somewhat assertive variety of the thing,
not unreminiscent of the ways of Hitler before,
and Stalin afterwards, towards Eastern Europe.


7) Let us take the view, let us even suppose that, to take one,
the US should not feel happy about such a take-over by power, of Taiwan
(assuming the Islanders could not defend themselves, which may be a large assumption
when atomic weapons are in mind, and results escalate rather quickly in that sphere,
for the entire world, as for those more directly involved),

Let us imagine that the US should think that the people of China, Taiwan-style
(with a considerably higher standard of liberty and of living, but let that pass), should not be dismembered even from their island, to become Communist subjects: what then ?

Then, the General reportedly indicated, the Chinese Government (mainland version)
would or rather SHOULD (for we recall these are STATEDLY but the views, personally,
of the General, despite the anomaly in this) take reciprocal action.

Now it is true that the reciprocity is rather uneven, but in principle, in some sense, it is conceived to be there. To DRAW the missiles on the 'target zone', which as we see, is not part of the territory controlled and seized by the Chinese Communist Party at present, is taken as doing so to China. That, as we have seen, is an interesting verbal way of making war at the outset, and perhaps, in intention, of gaining the results of war without having one. The method seems to be this: assume it done, and then protest at the action which might stop its being done. But let this also, let it pass.

The reciprocity in view, then, it is that the General reportedly thought, thinks, that we, that is the Chinese Communist Party in China, currently controlling the mainland in various ways, "will have to respond with nuclear weapons." Those are the very words, according to the quotation in the report of The Times.

Now we might naturally display or at least feel some interest in the way in which the nuclear weapons would respond to this undesirable pointing or drawing, hypothesised for some foreign country relative to the target area, which turns out to be the sovereign nation of Taiwan.

It would deploy the most powerful weapons at its disposal, he indicated, to defend the claim to Taiwan. He would be prepared, with the Chinese sector in view, the Communist variety, for the destruction of all the cities East of Xian, yes, such a cost could be borne!



Now Xian, if one understands the reference aright, is not so very far from the centre of China. Such tenacity seems a strange way of increasing the well-being of China, to abandon cities to its East. A peek at the map is a non-illustrious mode of seeing the point! If however, intimidation of Taiwan, US, and other parties during a grab were in view, the matter could be the better understood. In that case, there is no payment at all, just the cost of producing a few words. That however is not all from the General.

He reportedly further  indicated, but on the other side, that the US would need to be prepared for the destruction of hundreds of cities - presumably its own - in such an event.

It would seem that the 'target area' for an invasion of Taiwan would be Taiwan, or the immediate vicinity. Perhaps, the destruction of possible sending sites would be in mind, but if so, it would be only with respect to the sending, not to the existence of such places. If there no sending in mind, if there no pointing of missiles at Taiwan from such imagined or actual sites, then there would be no point in pointing missiles at them. It is thus a strange theorem. WE point missiles at Taiwan, and do not want you to point them anywhere which could interfere with out pointing.

In this way, the position seems to wander.

If the Americans DRAW their missiles in the target area, Taiwan being the obvious target, for it is the only thing in view for change and action, then apparently China would be considering action to follow, for some reason, presumably its intractability in despite of any danger and insistence on  - shall we say, absorbing another nation. The action seems to amount to the imagined destruction by nuclear means of the cities of a sector of the mainland, though it is unclear why this particular sector, rather than a more central one should be in view, which might, in one strike have considerably more impact; or why it might not rather be merely restricted to the forces on their way to attack Taiwan, shall we put it, leaving their homeland and seeking to take over someone else's homeland.

That, however, it is in the midst of this strange report, where aggression seems to outrun reason. Naturally, if you use your arms to pin someone else to the ground, police might take your arms, to stop you misusing them. This is however not a pointing at your arms, but a restraint of their criminal misuse. If you tell the police that if they do not stop pointing their missile senders at your arms, you will point yours at them, and everybody can have a scrap, it does not, because of the violence, in the least alter the structure of the situation. Somebody wants to force somebody else, and wants to force anyone who wants to help that party not to be forced, to stop the deterrence.

This is understandable, certainly, in criminal activity, for police are in fact often shot with such a thing in mind. It is however less applicable when someone is objecting, just because the matter is far worse being on a far larger  scale to oppress millions, not one unit, of the human race, that efforts to deter violation of somebody else's freedom may require the warding off of their friends. Is it criminal to stop criminals ? Are police to bow to threat ? Is the US a policeman  ? Of course not, but as you look at history,  especially World War I and II,  and not a little at World War III (concerning Eastern Europe, which Stalin felt it would be  good  to enslave - they all have their little ideas), you see that it is quite common for someone to feel aggrieved and troubled when millions of others are under threat, by the use of force, on the part of those who want to rape them.

The term 'rape'  may seem too strong, but it is used as a distinctive metaphor, and not as a judgment. To rape suggests  to seek a  deep  and intimate union with someone who is not in favour of the same; and this is precisely the position with respect to Taiwan.

To be sure, we cannot make too much of these translated words of the General,  with any great precision, but it behoves us to consider at least their direction, and the principles behind them, for these are quite clear.



While, then, ill-advised nations have been rushing technology to China, and industries have been built in no small part by foreign inventions and power in that land, we are now beginning to see the results of such immorality. Immorality ? Yes, but of course; for if over a billion people are under the power of a totalitarian political government,  which, as to type,  much of the world rightly resisted in World Wars II and III, why on earth should it be helping such oppression, in religion and thought, as now exists in China, by making that nation so strong that this is now its new song: We can defile your nation, so let us defile Taiwan's liberty!

They may word it differently, but in any use of force against man,
it is well to consider the party to be violated, as to its wishes.

What then of the preliminaries to this status quo, to this position ? What has the US, for example done ? The most-favoured nation*3 , relative to trade between the US and China,  has been dealt with before; and it has not been well dealt with, as has been maintained over the years. In the US itself, it has been facing considerable opposition.  It does not help the oppressed, to make the oppressors stronger on good terms.

Oppression is oppression, and world domination desires, as in Communism PER SE, are not desirable for the dominated, the more since the affair is neither rational nor of good report in its tender-heartedness ... . They tend to oppress, and to bring a foolish philosophy to fruition in terms of power, where reason fails. Here it is not only that force becomes unreasonable, but its philosophical milieu, Communism, is decidedly irrational,  and anti-verified and hence unscientific abortion of human production and thought.

Obviously, to fail to follow reason brings unreasonable results, such as the whim and caprice of the power-holders, and the lack of liberty allows asininities innumerable to take root and grow like weeds, whether they be those of Stalin or Hitler, Mao or other. It is never wise to make them into a protectorate given freedom to rule the world or its parts at will, for it tends,  like certain monetary policies, to be inflationary; but as to this, it is inflated already, and further inflation brings a bursting which can fling fragments far afield.

Just as peace must at all times be diligently sought, so for those who love freedom, it is not to be assumed that this is to be at the price of the necks of those who have the feet of others, standing liberally upon them.

It appears that the world is weary of war. Yet,  having rejected Christ, so that scarcely could it be maintained that in any nation is His rule present, though it is so in His own body, the Church, it cannot now find ways to bring any sort of liberty to man such as was sought in World War II, so valiantly.

The price of having helped a horrendous dictator, as he fought with the Allies, was World War II, and now with the powers betrayed to that sector, which the Allies in their inveterate desire for liberty so defiantly sought, there is this desire for a Hitleresque power to take other nations FREELY.

This then is the scenario.

What then might be a reply to the General, that could be sketched.
We could perhaps conceive of it in the old British sense. It might go like this.

I say, thanks for making that clear.

Often people don't ... I mean, make things clear.

You know, you remember the way the Japanese started things with the US in World War II; they didn't like that - the US, that is. They didn't really think much of it. It simply did not appeal, and the charred bodies of those suddenly hit, this did not have any attraction to the US, no, not really.

The Japanese on that occasion ? they just did it. That was it, and that was that - Pearl Harbor and all of that. Not good that. We didn't like it. But you're different: you're actually telling us. Thanks very much.  We'll bear that in mind in all our planning.

Of course, it won't make any difference to our own approach to Taiwan. No good having that sort of shot-gun wedding, is it! The best for both is to wait till things are ready - you know, similar standards of living in mainland and Island, similar cultural values for both FIRST, and a willingness by BOTH peoples for union, NEXT. 

That's for the best, you know: force makes enemies and hostility, and this breeds further violence, or vileness, or both. Not good, that. World is a small place, almost now, what!

Meanwhile, thanks for telling us. We hope you will consider Taiwan as fellow Chinese, who are voting for what they want.

We are very much against war, and seek peace for all, and liberty for all, diversities and open-ness. Give it time, as in any romance, and don't use force. That's far the best. We will look for due concern for all concerned, and for an historical realism together with a thoughtful long-sightedness. We hope you will too.



With a prominent US congressman, a Democrat in the opposition,  reportedly telling President Bush how to choose highly placed Judges for eminent positions in the nation's legal system, in the judiciary, perhaps then one could, as here,  suggest a possible answer to China's recently reported diplomacy, if you choose such a term for the matter. You know if it, by now ? the news was that she might bomb - yes nuke - US cities if the US interfered in the matter - the little matter of Taiwan. It was a personal report from an impersonal system, run by persons. Very well. Let us investigate that on the basis of the report available.

What lies, for one major feature, back of this little flurry, this work of lancers, is this. The US, in recently undertaking two wars with one result, unwise synthesis with Moslem clerics and others, as in the famed Prayer Breakfast*4, has in this way launched herself into this century, itself so new, so fresh, in a way dishonouring to God. Irrespective of the objectives, the method is wrong for this reason. If you want to honour God, you do not mix the religions (II Corinthians 6:14),  and act on the mixture; but act in His name alone (Exodus 20). Although the US is not a Christian country, there are many Christians in it, and they have not so long ago elected  a President who claims to be a Christian, and makes no infrequent comments to this effect. Indeed, without doubt, many Christians helped him to become President.

It would have been possible and permissible for him to make it clear that many cultural and religious values existed in the US, and that in time of war, one has to be clear, so that while the nation is diverse, he is not. He could have proceeded that he,  as President, wanted to make it clear that there was only one  God in his life, and it would be in that power of that same God, and in terms of His principles that he would act, both to remove the threat to US lives, and to help others to be free from such tyrannies and murders. Others would be as usual, free entirely to follow their faiths, but he would follow the God of whom he spoke before election, and to do less would simply be both weak and hypocritical.

This, he could have said. It would have taken courage, and would undoubtedly have stirred many, just as the nauseous and almost continual opposite course is taken by many in office, and that also stirs results. If any one dares to have any view, conception, conviction, faith or God, it is becoming increasingly intolerable to many to have them act like it. Put it in your bedroom and enjoy yourself, but do not bring it here! appears an increasingly popular notion.

Such suppressive dynamics are an alternative to faith, to courage, to Christian integrity, to name but one.

When, as in the Islamofascist grouping, there is a view of just the same kind, but lacking reason (cf. More Marvels Ch. 4, SMR pp. 1080ff., Divine Agenda Ch. 6), then that is becoming more fashionable to accept.

It is strange, this sort of mentality, is it not ?

Yet force seems relevant to many: makes things tough, and you may be physically disabled if you object to the objections of those who want take-over of culture in order to achieve, like perhaps China with Taiwan, a result without too much effort. Churchill was much used in avoiding this escape hatch, which is in fact no more an escape, than is that in a submarine, when you are submerged. Hence England was helped to remain free, just as in 1588, another menace loomed.

This sort of cultural pre-emption, or its oratory,  is mere intimidation, such as other dictatorially minded peoples, or here more precisely, governments have often used.

Indeed it was precisely this sort of disordered thinking and action in which King Sennacherib  of Assyria anciently engaged, when confronting Judah as in Isaiah 37. His devious and despicable entreaties to subvert the people, through mere propaganda, were not effective to a disciplined people (cf. Isaiah 36-37).

It was scandalously wrong in fact, in that clear case, since it ignored the one fact which counted, that the living God has shown Himself in countless actions, coherently, and had shown it of Israel when it was a nation blessed in the Covenant concerned; and that bulking Him together with the gods of the other nations was rubbish (Isaiah 36:17ff.), like bulking the right answer in maths with the many wrong ones, since all the students had one or the other.

That is the trend of the times, intimidation and hypocrisy, or at least disintegration of fidelity and faithfulness. It is uneven. It is ridiculously self-contradictory; it respects persons in a way both unjust and unreasonable; but there it is.

Thus of course a President could so act. He does not cease to be a person because he is a President, or election would become some style of execution! If the people did not like the oratory or the results, they could refuse to re-elect him. What torture! Is this seriously, then, presented as a reason for not so acting on the part of any President ? Did not Lincoln give out various views in Gettysburg ? Did he have to ask sanction ?

Thus the alliance with Islamic elements in PRAYER was one of the greatest defilements of the USA as an nation which has ever occurred. It is one thing to be tepid in faith, or to have many millions of church-goers who are mere formalists; but it is quite another when a country by its elected leader so acts at a critical moment, with another religion.

To be sure, in the US you mercifully have to protect people of all the non-violent faiths, ones which do not threaten to kill and maim, to say no more; but this is not the same as joining with them in prayer.

One well remembers an occasion when one was a pastor in a church in Illinois, when one of the 'directors' (odd idea which eventually led to departure) was involved in seeking a senatorial position. There was concern on one's own part, at the idea of PRAYING in a POLITICAL meeting, when atheists and all views might be present. If one prayed NOT in the name of Christ, then as a Christian, one should know that this is to defy orders, for ALL things must be done in His name (Colossians 3:17), and any partnership with unbelievers is forbidden, in spiritual things, most clearly in II Corinthians 6, for example. No yoking is nearer than joint prayer to one's Maker and Redeemer for His Fatherly actions!

The directors however were divided when one asked them to cease such action. One intimated that he would not change his manner of life in any way whatsoever. The Lordship of Christ was not here apparent. Such was the event in the church meeting!

One of them seemed more willing and asked what then he should do, should he be asked to pray in a political meeting. As pastor, one gave the reply that it is not one's prerogative to choose what good thing a man should do, but rather one was asking all to avoid violation of what was clearly forbidden. However, one could suggest and accordingly, a suggestion was made.

Why not, one put it, tell the meeting in such a case, that one appreciated the honour of being asked to pray in their midst, but that it was necessary to point out that one was a born-again Christian. To pray other than in the name required, that of Jesus Christ, would be to insult God, who commanded otherwise; to pray however in His name, might be to insult some in the meeting, since many were not believers in Him. Hence, the idea was, the politician could continue like this.

Ladies and Gentlemen, as a born-again Christian, I can make one suggestion. I will indeed pray here if, and only if, those of you who are Christians pray with me, but those who are not, shut their eyes, or simply opt out, do not participate. In this way, the Christians can pray, and others can follow their own ways.

Much later, one learned that apparently he actually did this, and was elected as Senator, or to some such office.

Yes, it is decidedly possible to honour God in the midst of a political leadership in a diversified nation.  It is also necessary, if the post is not to become an incubus at best, or a disaster at worst.

Thus it appears entirely possible that the chief, or a chief reason why bin Laden escaped after his ghastly actions and statements, is this: that Islamic brotherhood superseded political alliance. If you ask Moslems to deal with a Moslem leader, there is always that possibility, and in view of the absolutist nature of that religion, it is an immense one. It does not take ALL to secure such a betrayal, but just a small number of people could no doubt secure such a result. You remember in the days of Hitler, how Admiral Canaris played a double game successfully for quite some time!

With this vulnerability now highlighted, as even some professing Christian people joined in that anti-biblical scenario of prayer at the Presidential Prayer Breakfast, one sees that Christ has been dishonoured: in biblical terms, we have the mouse defying the cat.

Now it is true that China if a mouse, is an enormous one, and the term is not used in any derogatory sense, but merely to indicate that the power relationship has been of that character, vis vis the US, until rather recently. It captures that thought, that is all.

The US has in unwisdom as to METHOD undertaken two recent wars, and is greatly pre-occupied, to the point that one highly placed reviewer of its position recently gave out the view that it COULD NOT successfully fight two wars at once.

That is a large change from what was being said earlier.

The idea of limitation is starting to set in, and at this same time, or shortly after it, the idea of a mouse landing atomic weapons in the heartland of the cat (and the Chinese General himself makes it clear it could not contest with the US except in nuclear mode), it is one which becomes modish. Words have arrived, arisen, and the horizon in the orient is becoming redder. It does not blush. Red is its currently imposed colour in a large, but mercifully not total swathe.

Red however is not the natural colour of China. It is an acquired thing, like Emperors of old, warlords, mandarins and the commissars of today. One can love the people of China, and there is much to love about them, while being poignantly grieved by their oppression.

While misuse of liberty in the name of freedom is one error, removal of freedom in the name of power is another! People cannot really act as the 'father' of a people, while themselves no nearer to God than the others, and even if a little nearer, not so near as to become surrogates! In this case, however, with the official line one of nescience, knowing nothing of God, the prospect of paternity from such a regime, by take-over, is like that of a rodent ulcer.

It is necessary for those who would make men like horses to be trained in the desired way, to release and to realise their presumption. If not, then it is the order of things under the Almighty, that when, like Napoleon, like Hitler, like Mao, they pass in their vainglory, and their ways pass away, swept aside with contempt for their ambitious rot, then their name passes as do their bones.

Not thus is a nation served; and not thus is China to be rewarded, as if some economic boon spawned by foreign capital to a prodigious degree,  were the very merit and nature of man. If you make the chewing of  man's mouth his purpose, then he has none, and becomes like an automobile which moves without map, for no reason, except that it move (cf. Micah 3:1-5). This is, purpose-wise, dead, and a mere assemblage of parts chugging away to chug.

Like circular reasoning, circular living is an abortion, or so like one as to cry out the resemblance. What might have been life, is mere control, and what is personality, is mere programmatic intrusion. It is Communism, then, not China, which is the enemy, and there are others like it, which will shout their orders, whether for the Left foot or the Right, as man in misled masses marches to an unremarkable destiny, controlled by despots, those of ideas and ideals of oblivious merit, being shot, or wounded, or aggrieved in meaningless prisons, taught by labour to disregard the whole point of the meaning of man, in favour of being alive,  as if anything at all, evacuated like a harlot, of personal significance.

What RETAINS no small personal significance, of course, in that system is the persons, like French Dukes before the famous Revolution in that land,  who guide the others, impose the systems, and while denying the significance of the individual, act as individuals with lordly powers. In this, they even surpass those of the worst of the aristocrats of old; for those often had a legal structure, however tainted, to limit them, or a king, or even a parliament of sorts; but here, the 'Party' which is a party indeed, as if drunk, takes over all, and acts to keep in thrall what is anything but enthralled.

Moving with god-like mien, but without anything of the grace or the goodness of God, or even any small part of His understanding, which is not gained except as a gift, and not in any case presented to rebels, they proceed in their awe-ful effrontery towards God and man. Since their hearts are immune, being pre-occupied with their own lives, power and importance, they gain neither wisdom nor perspective, and seeking to make the butt of an idol stand upright, are pre-occupied with vanity.

They are not the first; nor will they be the last. That, it is the way with idols, and when enthralled, they act for a while, becoming intoxicated, they fall with them, invincibly destroyed, oddments of history, abortions of life.

If then Redness in China wants to talk of American blood, this is no surprise; but it is not China which speaks, for its voice is under control, and many who did or would speak, are spoken to in inhuman labour camps in that land*5, a humiliating duress and an irrelevant answer to their often just criticisms of the absolutist powers of rather puny little beings, who strut with trumpet blowing, and tell all from their immunity to understanding, what is to be understood. Who among us all is SIGNIFICANT in himself, in herself ? what is this so great man which bellows or broods ?

Man without God is like a horse without skin, a river without water or a mount without earth. It is only the source which adorns the sent, only the grandeur of God which gives meaning, only the compassion which gives strength amid sin, only the grace which gives place, and without all of this, the harsh cry of the peacock makes a lot of sense. What ELSE should it sound like! (cf.  SMR pp. 620 - 631A, 612ff.,
Repent or Perish
Ch. 7).

It may take a little, but this is likely to defile the nation to the point that unrealism and hatred will scar the very tissues of its being. As with Hitler, it arises for a time, the distortion of man a payment for the chosen dream; but in the end, its service becomes self-service, and as to Taiwan, its addition to this thrall is not merely undesirable, but quite as deplorable as any assault by Saddam Hussein on Kuwait could ever have been. In each case, there is much to gain; but theft, it is neither moral nor interesting. It does not add to the sum of human development, but is mere fraud instead. To steal from a people of the Creator, their liberty, it is a theft which will assuredly gain its reward, if not from man, then from God, as was the case with Assyria, Babylon, Tyre, Egypt and Mt Seir

(cf. SMR pp. 713ff., The Pitter-Patter of Prophetic Feet ... Ch. 4, and above SMR refs.).

Such a reward, however, is not something one would cherish even for an enemy; and as a Christian, one is taught to love one's enemies. Hence one will hope for China's sake, and for the sake of those who seek to run it, that they do not seek to steal from the richer Taiwan, with its greater liberty, any more of the gifts which God has made, than have already been taken by the occupation of the mainland.






The idea of PERSONAL views being important in a Communist regime like that of China, is almost comic in some ways. Imaginary forces and compilations protruding, exuding, intruding, forcing, compelling is the model, and though they do not so work, they do so occur to the minds in thrall to this delusion.

The individual is practically exempted from significance, although in fact, ONLY individuals can speak and project. Even a mystic chant does not alter the fact that each voice to be intelligible, is that of an individual. Concurrence, it speaks for itself: it is the work of individuals in such a sphere. But what do facts matter when ideas are rife, and arriving!

Irrationally in this field of operation, it is the communal which is all that matters, even though it COULD not exist and operate except for individuals making their way clear with minds that actually function, as distinct from the magical arising which seems to invest communist thought, as if some virtual god, contemporary model and mode, should fantasise its way into the collective thought, whatever that might be, and arise in the hearts of those concerned to achieve significance. It has all the spectral and phantasmal quality of Macbeth's Banquo. Only God has the power and the precepts to achieve this! Communism is in fact a crypto-religion, minus God, and with inbuilt goddishness, built on the absence of thought and law. It is worse then fiasco: it is futility in ideation.

How 'it' can arrive from what is not there, or being there, have ground for being so,  can think, so that its voice and 'will' is heard, and MUST be followed; how 'it' can intimate, why 'it' should be heeded even if it existed, why 'it' should be desired: all these are the unanswered questions of the emperor's new clothes, which really were not there at all. Such is Communism's vacuous vapidity.

God suppressed into irrational confines, however, and not acknowledged at that, does nothing, as the case of Elijah and the false prophets showed, at Mt Carmel. He is not interested in obeying the baying of those who want someone with whom to hunt, since He acts in His own name, not on pseudo-programmatic impulse direction.

The imagination in communism is mere implicit mythology, like that of the ancient Greeks, potent only for propaganda or ineffectual artistries.

Communism is really a repressed religion, and its religiosity in surreptitiousness is one of its certain grounds for downfall, as must occur for all unrealism. See also *2 below and in particular Repent or Perish Ch. 7, News 37,  97 and SMR Ch. 4, Extension E. It imports and applies morals, telling its devotees what they OUGHT to do, when matter has no obligation, merely occurrence, and its derivatives have no external criteria to impel, impose or display: thus it shows its contradiction of its own self, in its inane lust for what it cannot provide (cf. News 19).

It wants to subordinate and create all reality in itself while there is no self to act as a basis. It wants to proclaim 'truth' while removing its existence in relativities without any absolute. It wants in particular, to proscribe, when it can only describe, and even that by a reductionism so terrible in triviality, that even if it were not denied (as is the case equally with Islam) by events (SMR pp. 925ff., News 306), it would still be excluded by the irrational appeal to a morality and actuality which, for it, simply cannot be on the one hand, or be known, on the other. Islam, let us note in parallel, appeals to an all might which for it, does not operate (cf. SMR pp. 829ff.), and to a past which does not apply (cf. SMR pp. 1080ff.). Small wonder some of its methods now, as in the 8th century, are becoming so desperate and grow so disparate from all wisdom and righteousness, as attested in the appeal of some through beheading, in the enormities and atrocities of al Qaeda, or similar disgraces to humanity.


Koestler's work, Darkness at Noon, is very interesting in this regard,  for communism. As the Encyclopedia Britannica points out of this work, it is addressing itself to the moral danger of an approach which subordinates ends to means. Likewise Solzhenitsyn's First Circle is instructive in the collision of fantasy with reality in this field. The fantastic, the irrational, it has its place; but it is not where life is lived. Truth divorced from life becomes merely the ante-room to hell. It does not, because it cannot work; and the longer the world lingers, through fighting words or fear, or power misused, or any combination, in the shadow of such things, the more it suffers. It is sad that it so suffers, but when liberty is lassoed and man becomes his own god, there is no limit to the payment to come.

The limit of being man, so made; of  reason, so constraining and if not, then leaving a resultant that language itself is no longer per se rational, as shown often enough on this site; of realism, followed in verification, and if not yielding an omission that breeds illusion: this becomes so strong, that its consistent breach is like trying to fly with an automobile, or plough with a fountain pen. It is not just that it is inane; it is sad. The implements had such potential, if rightly used by the Maker. Now, they become, short of re-alignment, just debris, earth debris.



See -

Aviary of Idolatry

Delusive Drift ... Ch.    5,

News 44,  69, 97,  98,

Tender Times for Timely Truth Ch.  8;
The Grating Grandeur ... Ch.   2;

SMR  pp. 925ff.; 658ff.ff.

News 97 (the exploiters, the fanciful,
the Communists, the de-godders and the realities)

Beauty for Ashes Ch.    6 (and Hong Kong, and the movement of nations in the last century a concern),

News 98, News 37;


Beauty for Ashes

Ch.  3 (war and force, rising downwards, Tiananmen and truth),


4 (liberty, Tiananmen, worship and its direction in time, its terms and code of truth);


TAIWAN  News 150,

History, Review and Overview Ch.   1,

Impossible to Men ... Ch.   5

Repent or Perish Ch. 7




See News 37.



Dastardly Dynamics Ch.  10, including  *2; ALERT  6


*5 Harry Wu, of much fame in this connection,  has appeared before the American government, in order to attest the things he found, noted and annotated, during and after his time in such a Chinese camp. A foundation was established to forward this humane work. See News 18, News 37, The PItter-Patter ... Ch. , *5.