The Chinese sage has something to say to Obama about this story.
“Obama slams Trump over Muslim ban, ‘radical Islam,’” CNN Wire, June 14, 2016:
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama on Tuesday unleashed a blistering verbal assault on Donald Trump and his proposal for a ban on Muslims entering the country, saying the suggestion violates the principles of American democracy and dismissing the “yapping” from “politicians who tweet.”
Obama also angrily pushed back against criticism for not using the term “radical Islamic terrorism,” calling it “loose talk.”
“What exactly would using this language accomplish? What exactly would it change?” Obama asked during remarks at the Treasury Department. “Would it make ISIL less committed to try and kill Americans?” he continued, using a different acronym for ISIS.
“Would it bring in more allies? Is there a military strategy that is served by this? The answer is none of the above. Calling a threat by a different name does not make it go away.”
“The men and women who put their lives at risk and the Special Forces I ordered to get bin Laden and are now on the ground in Iraq and in Syria — they know full well who the enemy is,” Obama said. “So do the intelligence and law enforcement officers who spent countless hours disrupting plots. And protecting all Americans, including politicians who tweet, and appear on cable news shows. They know what the nature of the enemy is. So there’s no magic to the phrase ‘radical Islam.’ It’s a political talking point.”
Obama added, “This is a political distraction.”
Here is an answer to Obama from Confucius:
Zilu said, “If the ruler of Wei were to entrust you with governance of his state, what would be your first priority?”
The Master said, “Most certainly, it would be to rectify names.”
Zilu said, “Is that so? How strange of you! How would this set things right?”
The Master said, “What a boor you are, Yóu! A junzi keeps silent about things he doesn’t understand. If names are not right then speech does not accord with things; if speech is not in accord with things, then affairs cannot be successful; when affairs are not successful, li and music do not flourish; when li and music do not flourish, then sanctions and punishments miss their mark; when sanctions and punishments miss their mark, the people have no place to set their hands and feet. Therefore, when a junzi gives things names, they may be properly spoken of, and what is said may be properly enacted. With regard to speech, the junzi permits no carelessness.” — Analects of Confucius 13:3

marc says
If ignorant both of your enemy and yourself, you are certain to be in peril.
Sun Tzu
American Pragmatism says
That is a good quote too. Trump should use some of these. I did however appreciate Trump’s claim that Obama was more upset with Trump than the Orlando shooter.
mortimer says
-It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperilled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperilled in every single battle. – Sun Tzu
Obama loses almost every time in foreign policy. Why?
Jim says
Mortimer, I highly respect your words and have for many years! However, it is far past time for any to speak of obama in but one way. He is a traitor! He, and Jarret, and Brennan, and so many others he has with him are conspiring against this country, against the foundations of this great country–namely Christianity. He has not ‘lost’ in foreign policy–he has won! His objective is to defeat America–to let islam(piss be on it!) rule. God has told us how to defeat this evil. It is in Ephesians, 6:10-19. We must have a man who knows God and who knows the evil words of islam stand up before obama and confront him, attack him with the words of truth, so the world will see who he is. Then he must be ‘impeached’ and his motley crew removed in disgrace, even expelled to live in a desert hell hole! Please God let it be so!
blitz2b says
Is there some way that Trump was sent this quote? This is exactly what potus odumbo needs shoved up his wazoo to shut his flapping trap for good.
If somebody can send this page to the Trump campaign it would be awesome.
Nigel GFF says
Taxonomy is wonderful.
American Pragmatism says
Very true. I point that out too but with a smaller quotation. “The first step to wisdom is calling things by their proper name.”
Why should Obama lying to us about an enemy he says we don’t have, about their jihad he says isn’t real affect us?
It’s not just bad governance it’s knowingly lying to prevent demands that could keep the USA safer.
The fact he keeps knocking guns and speech means those are the effective weapons against jihad. We need to have a free press and a well armed populace.
mortimer says
AP wrote: “knowingly lying”
That is the most offensive thing about Obama and Cameron…the constant lying about the true nature of totalitarian Islam.
Keys says
Well said, AP, and insightful, especially your last paragraph.
“The first step to wisdom is calling things by their proper name.”
And what shall we call Islam? Evil.
Carolyne says
I believe that the Founding Fathers wrote into the Constitution the Second Amendment because they knew there was a danger of a renegade government installing itself and usurping the power given to the people. In my opinion, this is why the New World Order people are so upset that many of us are armed. They don’t really know where the guns are but I suspect many of us have guns that we have had so long that they are recorded nowhere with the government.
If things continue as they are, I would expect an armed insurrection against repressive government. And, much to the dismay of those who wish to install Islam, we are armed.
William says
Wise words from Confucius and ones we should heed.
Meantime, did you know the petulant, thin-skinned, half-breed bastard has not called the governor of Florida? Imagine that! The worst mass shooting in US history and the President of the United States doesn’t have the decency to call the governor of the State that has been impacted by a grievous act, after which the governor requested the declaration of a state of emergency.
gravenimage says
No surprise there…
Carolyne says
Obama is in FL now to speak to the families of those killed and wounded in Orlando. If I were a family member, I would turn my back on him and stay that way during his entire visit. If I were to see him anywhere, I would turn my back. I do not wish to defile my eyes with Muslim trash.
rachel says
Another link to response to obama’s petulant rant.
https://youtu.be/XXm0Xwts19A
Richard says
Obama – “What exactly would using this language [calling Islamic terrorists, Islamic Terrorists] accomplish? What exactly would it change?”
It would accomplish the acknowledgement that Islam is the problem. That the ideology of Islam is the problem and allow the discussion and countering of the ideology openly, in public and countering it in our media and schools.
Right now the ideology of Islam gets an apology after every heinous massacre carried out under its name, by its directives and inspired by its ideology, instead of being exposed for the evil that it is. It is treated as sacrosanct, above criticism.
Face_The_Truth says
Of course, the names or words change the whole meaning of the ideology of Islam to all Western people — who are unaware of Islamic Trojan Horses — by identifying the devil within.
Ideology of Islam is presented by British and American governments as a benign subject matter!
Once government officials start routinely naming names, many ordinary folks will ask questions such as if the ideology of Islam is so great, how come Muslims are committing so many terror-attacks on non-Muslims?
Then, the deck of cards will start falling apart and the ideology of Islam will be eradicated from the West, which British and American governments do not want to happen.
Ted Tyler says
Richard. You have just given an accurate definition of the problem.
And now we have another possible Slogan for a T-Shirt!:
“The Problem is the Ideology” possibly to go with “It’s the Ideology, Stupid”.
Richard says
“The Problem is the Ideology” possibly to go with “It’s the Ideology, Stupid” are both terrific catchphrases and true. But they leave out Islam.
Would “It’s the Islamic ideology, Stupid” or “The Problem is the Islamic Ideology” or “The Problem is the Ideology of Islam” be too long?
Ted Tyler says
Yes, the Tee shirt might say “The problem is the Islamic Ideology”. Long, but not too long, but it is a statement that gives the answer. If your shirt says “The problem is the ideology”, then that should create the logical question: What Ideology?? Hum. On second thought, I may be asking too much from the reader of the Tee shirt.
WorkingClassPost says
Why not keep it really short;-
Stupid islam
Ted Tyler says
For a short slogan, you might say “Islam is Evil” but you cannot say “Stupid Islam”. That is simply not true. Islam may well be the most brilliant system of enslavement and conquest that has ever been devised by man. It effectively combines a religious system with a political system. The religious portion effectively induces extensive brain damage by repetition of prayer five times as day. Islam reduces women to possessions and their only use is to provide pleasure for the men and to produce many children to be further indoctrinated in Islam – thus spreading the disease. All criticism of Islam is met with swift and effective punishment. Free speech is not allowed. Then one moves to the political aspects of Islam. The holy texts of Islam provide a blueprint for the conquest of the non-believer – by hook or by crook – by aggressive military conquest when you are strong or by subversion and treachery when you are weak. So Islam is not “Stupid”. Islam is a powerful enemy and must be recognized as such.
Richard says
“Islam Kills”?
Alain B says
The T-shirt should be double sided, with the front saying “the problem is not terror”, and the back ” It’s Islamic Ideology” with a picture of Old Mo with a bomb in his turban.
Carolyne says
How about, “It’s Islam, stupid!?”
Jay Boo says
America forget Orlando
America forget the link to ISLAM
Gun Control needed as solution
Because of attack on black church, a school, and a movie theater. which Oh by the way did I happen to mention by non-Muslims.
Obama deliberately omitted workplace Christmas party in his list.
I have not heard of even one MSM calling him out on that.
dragaozao says
And by not using that language what has he achieved? He received a dangerous world from Geroge W. Bush. He’s going to live a world even in worst conditions. And… that’s ok?
Vyx says
Obama asked for the job.
He ASKED to receive this dangerous world from GWB.
Not like he didn’t know what he was getting into.
citycat says
Someone has hit the mark, judging the angry response of Obama.
Abu Nudnik says
Yes. What do they say about taking flak? You’re over the target.
citycat says
Yes, and it comes often from some stitched up, spurious one-sided morality, like found in gang warfare.
Atilla says
The list of treason charges against the Izslimanian candidate is getting longer
Diane Harvey says
The bitch is really coming out of the One now.
The more he wades into the campaign for Hillary, done only to “preserve” his miserable and treasonous record, the more he’s gonna get beaten around the ears.
Even Muhammad Ali knew the significance of calling things by their rightful names.
Ali v. Terrell, 1967,
“From the eighth round on, Terrell was virtually helpless,” Hauser wrote in his book. “And from that point on, Ali taunted him mercilessly. Time and again, he shouted, ‘What’s my name,’ and followed with a burst of blows to Terrell’s eyes. ‘Uncle Tom! What’s my name! Uncle Tom! What’s my name!’ ”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/ernie-terrell-boxer-who-lost-to-a-taunting-muhammad-ali-in-1967-dies-at-75/2014/12/20/0bafab34-86d0-11e4-b9b7-b8632ae73d25_story.html
Abu Nudnik says
You say ISIL, I say ISIL. Most have called the whole thing off and settled with IS. But Obama always plays politics. “Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant” includes Israel, and Obama never tires of delegitimizing that State.
Face_The_Truth says
Some say, A$$HOLE.
Aron says
This is one of Robert Spencer’s greatest Retorts.
mortimer says
Mr. Obama, “If names are not right then speech does not accord with things.”
mortimer says
‘Radical Islam’ is the correct name. ‘Militant Islam’ is a good name. ‘Fundamentalist Islam’ is an appropriate name.
Alain B says
I beg to differ, but I think the appropriate name for it would be or should be, literal Islam, which is exactly the kind of Islam IS is dishing out. It’s all spelled out in black and white. You must understand that when one studies the Qu’ran by heart through repetitive reading of it, in a language one does not understand, it leaves no room for understanding what one is reading, which in turn results in a literal application of the Qu’ran.
Cecilia Ellis says
Mort, why is just plain “Islam” not the correct name? ISIS does not refer to itself as the Radical Islamic State or as the Militant Islamic State. The Qur’an does not suggest those options are appropriate, as any deviation from, as Alain states below –literal Islam — canonical Islam would render that practice heretical.
Celtic says
@Mortimer
“Radical Islam’ is the correct name. ‘Militant Islam’ is a good name. ‘Fundamentalist Islam’ is an appropriate name.”
I disagree. The correct Name is orthodox Islam or simply Islam.
Carolyne says
Just plain “Islam” is a better name.
Ted Tyler says
How about: “Radical Islam is True Islam!”
Noel says
I got this from a clever person posting on you-tube:
There are three kinds of Muslims:
1) The Muslim who lives in an Islamic dominated society, who is Muslim because to be otherwise would mean certain death.
2) The western world Muslim who wanted to be a part of something and so became Muslim but has no clue what Islam really teaches.
3) The ACTUAL Muslims who spend their lives subjugating or attempting to subjugate others because they understand that this is exactly what Muhammad taught.
It was posted under the video Three Questions for Moderate Muslims (David Wood)
https://youtu.be/lpR0qbt41es
Don McKellar says
Obama, simply by referring to the Islamic State or ISIS by the term ISIL, gives away the whole game of his agenda on the matter.
He views the Islamic State as encompassing a much large area than just Iraq and Syria as in the term Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) but rather as Islamic State of Iraq and Levant (ISIL). The Levant historically is an enormous area which engulfs part of North Africa, Israel, and a further sweep north west. Obama’s actions in the service of ISIL have enabled this larger sweep as best he can. Here’s a Wikipedia of the Levant. The Islamic State and Obama of course consider the Levant to the the entire area covered by all the shades of green. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levant
WorkingClassPost says
If what it’s called doesn’t matter, then why is he so all fired up about it?
William says
Here’s something else Confucius said concerning governing well:
“If the people be led by laws, and uniformity sought to be given them by punishments, they will try to avoid the punishment, but have no sense of shame.
“If they be led by virtue, and uniformity sought to be given them by
the rules of propriety, they will have the sense of shame, and
moreover will become good.”
WorkingClassPost says
That Confucius was one clever sob.
linnte says
He was, Working Class! A mind right up there with Aristotle and others of ancient thought.
WorkingClassPost says
Yup, and I’d say there are a few around these parts who are not so far behind.
common sense says
A samurai lord set up a test for his 3 sons: An expensive vase on the top of the entry way set to fall when each son was summoned one at a time. Based on a true story from the “Unfettered Mind” by Takuan Soho. ( I believe, it may also be in “Hagakure” by Yamamoto Tsunetomo)
The eldest son when summoned walks in the vase falls and breaks the eldest son does nothing and is sent away.
The 2nd born son walks in see’s the vase falling, draws his sword and cuts the vase destroying it. He is sent away.
The 3rd born son walks in see’s the vase falling, catches it, inspects it and with great respect presents the vase to his Father.
The two eldest sons are deemed ignorant and reckless and are sent away to live in the village while the 3rd son remains to inherit his fathers estate and business affairs.
We all know who Obama is and its great to see Trump dance on him even if Trump does not become POTUS.
linnte says
Great story. Thanks and I agree about Trump! But let’s hope he does her elected.
dts says
I see Robert Spencer and his ilk as the gas-line inspectors that tell me (after having been assured otherwise, for years – assured that the fault is with my perceptions) that the gas-lights really ARE flickering and even show me the leak in the valve that causes it – to finish the metaphor. Thank you, Mr. Spencer, for such an elegantly apt rebuttal here, and for your tireless work in general.
Islamorefugee says
Americans are now paying the price of their indifference , or ignorance,if you please . What kind of political maturity it is not to be able to know a person thoroughly before handing over your hard earned Republic and to serve as it’s Supreme Commander at the time of adversity ?? What people knew about him ?? How accurate was the knowledge ?? How.competent was he for the responsibility ? After all ,the presidency of the USA was adorned by the likes of George Washington ..Abraham Lincoln .. Does this man qualify by those standards.???
This man now bows before the Soudi king . He made the whole America bow before the king. That too with a submissive body language. Those who love the great Republic was far from being happy. After all, the Arabs could never be able to find and take out the oil that was there under their feet. It was only due to the British American effort that the nomadic and quarreling Arab tribes are well fed for the last few decades.
We must not forget that the man has his middle name ‘ HUSSEIN’.
A dangerous thing indeed for those who know.
Conclusions : Complacent and indifferent Americans have to face this ‘Trojan Horse ‘ of islam on their own land.
Long Live America.
On God we trust.
Angemon says
My favourite Confucious quote is “man who run behind car will get exhausted but man who runs in front of car will get tired” 😉
Seriously though, I think Obama and the rest of the pack refuse to call things by their names because they operate on a logic where words magically influence the world. Ban people from saying “nigger” and racism will magically disappear (as for why “cracker” isn’t banned is beyond me). Ban people from saying “faggot” and homophobia disappears. Don’t call islamic state “islamic state” and presto!, muslim “radicalization” magically stops happening.
Bezelel says
Man who eats jelly beans farts in technicolor.
linnte says
Hahahahahahaha! So That’s why my ex was a rainbow toting fart machine! Hahahaha!
Bezelel says
Speechless, but laughing very hard.
warren raymond says
Some more Confucius:
If language is not correct, then what is said is not what is meant; if what is said is not what is meant, then what must be done remains undone; if this remains undone, morals and art will deteriorate; if justice goes astray, the people will stand about in helpless confusion. Hence there must be no arbitrariness in what is said. This matters above everything.
Guest says
I think that means political correctness is wrong. If so I agree with Confucius.
Ren says
Americans can not tolerate 4 more years of Dumbama administration. It’s gonna be catastrophic!
Carolyne says
Yes, if Hillary Clinton wins, it will be catastrophic. She will have the power to appoint at least one and maybe four members of the Supreme Court. They will be leftist, New World Order justices who will do away with the First and Second Amendments and we will be forbidden to criticize Islam. She attended a UN meeting in Istanbul when SOS on that very subject.
We will lose the right to “Bear arms.” One of the aims of the NWO is to disarm Americans so we will have no means to resist the hordes of Jihadis she means to bring into this country.
She is on the payroll of Saudi Arabia and Qattar. Bought and paid for. She is not pro-women, pro-gay, or pro anything which will interrupt her plans for the complete destruction of our country as we know it. I am so tired of seeing her nod her head, agreeing with herself that “That is not who we are.” That is exactly who we are, Mrs. Clinton, and we will not bow down to your masters, even if you do.
Schrödinger says
The US Stealth Jihadist in Chief’s insufferable pretence (fully permitted in islam – refer to Sura 16:106 and the many related Hadith & Tafsir) suffices to continue fooling far too many, despite Obama repeatedly confirming his true fealty and submission to “allah”.
No loyal slave is ever unfaithful to their master.
The United States must understand it’s not merely at a crossroads but the brink of a precipice. Trump may not be a perfect candidate — there’s no such thing — but politics means choosing the better option. Thank your Stars and Stripes; if you prefer, thank God there’s a choice for President who is prepared to begin doing what must be done regarding muslims and islam, and to set about repairing the damage wrought these last eight years. As Trump has said, you won’t continue to have a country otherwise.
Should US citizens instead make the catastrophic mistake of permitting Hillary Hijra Clinton get anywhere near the White House ever again, rather than ensure she find herself somewhere appropriate (preferably a Federal prison, washing dishes) things will continue deteriorating to the extent this once great nation will likely be beyond salvation — along with the rest of the free world.
Champ says
One
Big
Ass
Mistake
America
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
TRUMP 2016!
Keys says
Good one, Champ. How about adding a first name:
Bad
Ass
Ruining
America
Know-It-All
underbed cat says
I would have missed another episode of listening to Obama explain his mindset and lecture some guy, about using the correct words. that are only found in Ism…had I not received a phone call. He was quite concerned about the backlash that may occur…maybe he is concerned with the word radical, so if this word was dropped nothing would change. Just the position of the adjective.
underbed cat says
Sorry maybe that did not make sense…adherent ism is what we see each time there is a attack. muslims have to remain silent about the violence or face it themselves..some follow doctrine the rest support it by money, silence and preparing people with misinformation so they will be able to sneak under the moral code of most religions and get a pass…so maybe Ob is the man with the passes that says it is just radical ism…
WakeUpCall says
From The Art of War, By Sun Tzu
1. Defeat evil ideology and win the hearts of the people is the key to winning the war against Islamic terrorism
Sun Tzu said: In the practical art of war, the best thing of all is to take the enemy’s country
whole and intact; to shatter and destroy it is not so good. So, too, it is better to recapture an
army entire than to destroy it, to capture a regiment, a detachment or a company entire than to
destroy them.
2. Win the heart of people, otherwise Islam will win it and the consequence is dire.
Sun Tzu said: “The Moral Law causes the people to be in complete accord with their ruler, so that they will follow him regardless of their lives, undismayed by any danger.”
isntlam says
“…when sanctions and punishments miss their mark, the people have no place to set their hands and feet.”
“And when the people have no place to set their hands and feet, uh, I don’t know what comes then,” said the Master.
Bridgette says
If you knowingly don’t call things by it’s proper name then you are knowingly responsible for their deaths as well.
WorkingClassPost says
Zen says that the greatest prophecy does not come true, because the people listen, and avoid catastrophe.
eduardo odraude says
Brilliant multicultural retort to Obama by Robert Spencer. Brilliant statement by Confucius.
(Normally, I’m not much of a Confucius fan, as I suspect he is one of the main forces that keep China a closed, undemocratic society.)
Soh says
It has been like this for millennia. Confucius is certainly no proponent for free speech or freedom of expression. You might recall a story in the Analects where he ordered performing midgets to be beheaded as that performance was unbecoming of a very sacred and important gathering of the leaders of the various Chinese kingdoms. He is more concerned about *proper* speech and *proper* expression or propriety in short.
I don’t know what you mean by closed or undemocratic since it has an open economy and holds elections at her grassroots though it doesn’t elect its leaders directly so I am assuming that China doesn’t conform to your political ideals. My only retort is that this hasn’t stopped China from running a civilisation and empire that has weathered the ravages of time and neither is it an impediment to its power and clout now.
Andrew says
Well there is something akin to democracy in Confucianism, called the Mandate of Heaven, which makes itself known through the feelings of the people, and comes into play in emergency situations (and is arguably used to lend legitimacy to the overthrow of rulers).
I would think however that the current situation in China is not really to do with Confucianism – remember that the Communist party tried to stamp out Confucianism in the early days as it saw it as an enemy to progress.
eduardo odraude says
Soh,
There is no freedom of speech or freedom of religion in China. The leaders of the society cannot be freely chosen by the people. If you say the wrong thing, you go to jail.
Without intellectual and spiritual freedom, you have a closed society. Intellectual and spiritual freedom are essential to a healthy and sane social order, at least today, in the modern world. Intellectual and spiritual freedom are the only means by which the evolving collective wisdom of a people can exist, instead of the peculiar blindness of a narrow group in power.
One of my prayers is for real Chinese democracy in the near future, together with freedom of the press.
I don’t only criticize Chinese government. I have problems with the US government, though they are different problems.
eduardo odraude says
Soh, an addendum: you say China has survived for millennia and its closed nature does not hinder its power and clout. You are wrong on the second point. China as a democracy would be tremendously more powerful than it is now, both culturally and economically. Further, do you really think that “power and clout” is all that is needed for a society to be healthy? No. Intellectual and spiritual freedom is an essential part of what it means for all of us to reach for our most basic humanity. Without that freedom, we are blind, we cannot know our inner selves properly nor the outer world properly.
eduardo odraude says
One final addendum: democracies throughout history have either never or almost never made war on each other. Democracy is the only kind of government of which that can be said. It seems to follow with iron logic that if you are against war, you must be for democracy, at least when it can be achieved successfully and peacefully — and I don’t mean local democracy only, in a system where people cannot criticize the top leadership or speak freely.
Soh says
No, no. You claim that China is closed and is not a democracy. I am arguing that it technically isn’t because it has a globalised economy and its citizens work in places all around the world (You should try speaking to them if you think they are brainwashed and slavishly toe the line of the Communist Party). And it is a technically a democracy because it holds elections. What you mean by closed and non-democratic is something else altogether, a political ideal that never has taken root in China.
Except perhaps for that period after the fall of the Qing Dynasty post 1912 where it adopted a Western style government which did nothing to stop China from sliding into fractional infighting and warlordism. History is not on your side when you make that assertion of China being more powerful if it is ‘democratic’.
Ironically, it is under a despotic and centralised government, imperial, communist or otherwise when China prospered. You might think that having power and clout is not important, but it is certainly is at the latter half of the 19th century and the first half of the 20th century when it was invaded by the West and Japan. Who now wants to invade China? You speak of intellectual and spiritual freedom, but how can that be achieved if you don’t have security and stability. You might not like how Imperial China and Communist China do things but they have provided that.
The point I am making is, you dislike how things are run in China. I am saying that this is how things have always been. You needn’t worry about world adopting China’s model though. Unlike Islam and the Soviet Union, I think the Chinese government is more concerned about maintaining that empire rather than to spread their model of government.
Soh says
Apologies for going off topic. You might have guessed that I am of Chinese heritage. I feel apprehension at your suggestion that China ought to follow your prescription because it is a different country run by different rules. China has experimented with a Western style government only to lead to disastrous results.
I might agree that Confucius doesn’t support the freedom of speech especially if it means saying things with scant regard of the circumstances. He supports proper speech. Personally, I think that is reasonable.
I wonder if you support the freedom of a radical Islamic cleric on issues like jihad and sharia? Robert Spencer rightly calls for mosques to be monitored but that will certainly infringe on the freedom of religion and of course the freedom of speech. Not unreasonable to throw him to jail as well too for inciting people to commit violence.
eduardo odraude says
Soh,
I am not under any illusion that Chinese citizens are entirely brainwashed — I believe many of them know exactly the situation. I realize that the Chinese economy is in many ways capitalist now and Chinese business people are all over the world.
I believe your view is the traditional one in China — you think stability is more important than freedom. Your view is not exactly wrong — but the assumptions underlying your view are wrong. Why? Because with every decade that passes, perhaps even with every year, we will learn increasingly that stability that fails to integrate freedom will become increasingly unstable.
I partly agree with your view about democracy, partly I would differ with you. I agree that the transition from one party dictatorship to democracy, depending on how it happens, could bring chaos rather than democracy. So it is very reasonable to be cautious about that.
I disagree that one-party dictatorship is more stable than an established democracy. The Far East has shown that its peoples can have great stability once democracy is well-established. Japan is a good example. South Korea and Taiwan are also increasingly good examples of how strong, prosperous, and stable democracy can be in the Far East.
If China could find its way peacefully to democracy, it would soon develop the political, economic, and cultural power of perhaps ten Japans. China would become the most powerful nation in the world. I believe Japanese democracy is more stable than China’s one-party dictatorship, because the Japanese government is there by the will of the Japanese people. The same for South Korea.
In China, those who want a different government are mostly forced into silence, so what we hear is mainly support for the Chinese government, and thus you think that you can claim that the current one-party Chinese government is what most Chinese truly want. That claim would be proven very quickly wrong if you had really free elections at the national level. Such elections would prove that, given a real choice, if they could have that choice peacefully and without chaos, the Chinese people would rid themselves of a one-party state the first chance they got. The risky part is not democracy, but the transition to democracy.
I don’t say China ought to carelessly move toward democracy. But I hope that they can find a careful way to get there. I hope for changes of a different sort in the US. I don’t think China or any other nation should become a clone of the US. But having democracy does not mean becoming anyone’s clone.
When you ask me if I support the freedom of a radical Islamic cleric on issues like jihad and sharia, I believe your question is confused. Radical Islamic clerics’ speech should only be suppressed if it calls for violent overthrow of the existing order, or for other violent attacks. If Muslims only wanted to use non-violent persuasion, I would see no problem. The problem is that the Qur’an, Hadith, and Sira propose to violently establish an expansionist, totalitarian system. They are not mainly about non-violent persuasion, but the very opposite.
You are mistaken if you have somehow gotten the impression that freedom of religion and freedom of speech means the right to call for violent attacks on people minding their own affairs. If one criminal starts urging another criminal to murder someone or invade his house, such speech is not protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
I hope you are right when you suggest that Chinese culture does not incline the Chinese to try to take over the whole world. I believe you might be partly correct on that.
eduardo odraude says
Soh, Addendum: as to your view that it is “reasonable” to limit speech to “proper” speech, well, that is a formula for intellectual slavery, and I don’t find it reasonable at all, but rather a case of not thinking things through all the way to the end.
Who decides what is “proper”? That will be the people in power. And what happens when someone sees corruption among the authorities? The authorities decide that it is “improper” to point out what they are doing wrong. I would go so far as to say that your hope of effectively approaching the Tao is greatly diminished without freedom of speech. But perhaps the Tao — or anything like the Tao — means nothing to you.
Without true freedom of speech — which, let’s be clear, does not include freedom to tell people to murder or to commit violent crimes — you doom yourself to cultural sleep, to having your mind managed by authorities. Good luck with that. What does it mean about us when we have lost the ability to care about the freedom of our own minds! It is almost as if someone were to say to a group of people who have their arms tied behind their backs, “hello, let’s untie your arms, so you can have full use of your limbs.” Then the rulers of that group of people step forward and say, “no, no, that would be improper. We don’t want your so-called freedom.” The mind – and the interaction of minds — depends every bit as much on freedom of movement as do the limbs — the only difference is that anyone can see the limbs of the body — but the limbs of the mind are invisible, so it is possible to not realize the importance of the freedom of intellectual movement.
I prefer the thinking of the dissident Chinese physicist Fang Lizhi.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/08/world/asia/fang-lizhi-chinese-physicist-and-dissident-dies-at-76.html?_r=0
Soh says
I hope others wouldn’t mind this digression. I enjoy an argument and it appears that you do as well.
I am afraid your assertions about stability, from which I gather that centralised rule is ultimately unsustainable, are based on a lack of understanding of Chinese history and society. Centralised despotic rule is the norm rather than the exception for much of China’s history. People may or may not support one party rule but I am not arguing that one party rule is popular or what the Chinese people want. I am arguing that one party rule be it by the Imperial Court, by Nationalist or the Communist Party, is the norm and history has demonstrated that it produces stability that enables China to make the progress she has enjoyed for past 3 decades. It has dominated East Asia in the past under despotic imperial rule as evidenced by how Chinese culture greatly influences Korean, Vietnamese and Japanese culture so I am not buying the argument that adopting a Western style government would lead it to be even more powerful.
So bringing the examples of South Korea and Japan is irrelevant since their histories and societies are different and they resemble nation states rather than an ancient empire. Though you may remember that tremendous economic progress took place in both Taiwan and South Korea under martial law in the 70s and 80s. (And I am sorry, as a person who follows Taiwan politics, I have to snigger at the thought of Taiwan being a stable democracy but that is another story)
You should visit Mainland China if you have a chance. It is not regimented like Mao’s China or North Korea where people are confined to work units. Many of her cities are comparable to other cities around the world. Fang mentioned about basic human rights including the freedom to be educated and the freedom to be married. I am quite certain that this is practised in China. So asserting that there is absolutely no freedom in Mainland China is an ignorant remark. Do you really think that a country that puts a straitjacket on how people should think and behave produce cities like these?
Just to clarify, it is my belief that Confucius is no advocate for the freedom of speech. From my studies of Confucianism, Confucius is an advocate for propriety and that places limits on what you can say and do Confucius’s political idol is Duke Zhou who laid the foundations of Chinese culture and customs that we know of today. From Confucius’s standpoint I believe the source of propriety, established traditions and customs.
I deem it not proper to hurl insult and abuse for no good reason, I deem it not proper to preach the killing of the infidels and so on. Are you suggesting that I am intellectually enslaved? I maintain and agree with Confucius that placing limits on speech and expression is reasonable.
By saying that some forms of speech is not protected by the First Amendment and that freedom of speech does not include incitement to violence you are admitting that there are limits! (If you ask me, the First Amendment only applies to passing of Bills and what the government can or cannot do. It is completely irrelevant to this discussion since we are not talking about what the government can or cannot do.)
(You also have to understand that “Tao” means different things in different schools of thought. Approach a follower of Confucius and he might deem “Tao” is to return to the social order that Duke Zhou espouses. Approach a Taoist on what “Tao” is and he will give you a different answer. “Tao” really means the way to go. So what do you mean by “Tao”?)
gravenimage says
One need not be an unreserved fan of someone to quote them when they are right.
I very much doubt that the freedom-loving Robert Spencer agrees with all of Confusious’s views–nor is this implying that he does.
eduardo odraude says
If things are not called by their right names, we are gradually blinded and will all fall into a ditch.
jewdog says
They are silent because they don’t understand, and then they make excuses for their ignorance.
Wellington says
The wisdom of Confucius will be lost on Obama. Much is lost on Obama. Much.
Keys says
Obama is lost; much lost, the worst kind of lost because he doesn’t know it.
A blind guide; a dangerous man.
Soh says
Yóu, (由) who was described by Confucius as a boor, is the given name of Zilu (子路). Zilu is his courtesy name, if anyone is interested in the quote.
gravenimage says
Confucius rebukes Obama
………………..
Confucius was very wise. If you do not call things by their right names, you cannot hope to understand them. If you do not call your enemies by their right names and name their tactics and their goals, you cannot hope to consistently defend against them.
That is, in fact, exactly what the doctrine of Taqiyya is intended to do–to confuse those Islam targets, and to lull them into a false sense of security the easier to victimize them.
MaryC says
gravenimage,
Brilliant! As irony would have it, my Concealed Carry Weapon instructor was saying almost the exact same thing earlier today about your typical gangbanger accosting one on the street. He said their intent is to rob you or maybe just go on a power trip. They’ll say odd things to put you off balance and the weaker your response, the more they will try to take from you. I brought up multiple scenarios, probing to find out how much/what to say before taking one’s gun out. Finally he told me to look up “use of force chart” on the Internet. Obama is trying to fool us into thinking if we’re just nice to them, they’ll be nice to us when in fact he knows full well that if we’re nice to them they will take it as a sign of weakness, all the easier to victimize us, just as you said.
MaryC says
I meant to add: Donald Trump gets all this to a ‘T’; it really ticks Obama off that Donald is waking the American people up and showing them just what a quisling Obama is. What really ticks me off is the “That’s not who we are” language. It makes me want to shout, “That’s not who you elites in your gated communities are. For those of us who are much more vulnerable, it is EXACTLY who we are, and there is no lack of virtue in it.” It disgusts me far more to hear “That’s not who we are” from Paul Ryan than it does to hear it from Hillary Clinton. The betrayal is far worse coming from Ryan.
Andrew says
I’m doing a PhD in Confucianism – and this is part of a movement in Confucianism called the Rectification of Names.
The idea of Rectification of Names isn’t just that things should be called things by their proper names – that’s trivial. Instead Rectification of Names is also that people ought to start behaving in a way that corresponds to their roles – or else be called something else.
And so a father should behave like a father if he wants to be called a father. A son should behave like a son if he wants to be called a son. The prince should behave like a ruler if he wants to be called a ruler.
To bring it back to the discussion here then, Rectification of Names would therefore mean that if a leader really wants to be called a leader, they should step up and exercise real leadership – or instead be called a grovelling servant from now on. 😉
WorkingClassPost says
Looks like bamo has chosen the latter.
eduardo odraude says
Yes Soh, you are correct, I do, sometimes, enjoy an argument:
You said
Granted, but it is risky to stick with tradition and the norm too rigidly in a world where norms have been shattered with ever greater rapidity over the last two centuries. Are you sure what has served China during thousands of years when human history everywhere moved very slowly will continue to serve in a world changing ever more rapidly?
I don’t think these old divisions between “Western” and “Eastern” are particularly useful. “Eurasia,” is a single continent. Europe is essentially an Asian peninsula. Ultimately the West was born out of the East, is a child of the East. Democracy is not essentially “Western,” even if it was born in the West. Many things were born in the West that the East would never want to do without. We will have to agree to disagree about whether China would be more powerful if it could peacefully attain democracy. I believe the three main domains of social life — economy, culture, and polity — would all tend to become far more powerful, creative, and stable.
I agree that capitalism under authoritarian governments can temporarily lead to great economic progress.
Depends what you mean by stable democracy. To my knowledge, Taiwan has enjoyed many peaceful democratic transfers of power. Since the transition to democracy there have been no violent coups. If to you “instability” means that different parties struggle to win elections, and different parties take turns ruling, well, that’s called multi-party democracy. The only thing that makes for instability in Taiwan is the threat from China to invade and take over.
I am fully aware that China is nothing like North Korea or Mao’s China. I am fully aware that many Chinese cities are technologically advanced places. Compared to how things used to be in China, the place is much freer than it was. I am also aware that the internet is censored in many ways, newspapers are controlled in many ways, religion is controlled in many ways.
That is called attacking a strawman. I never said “there is absolutely no freedom in China.” I never even said “there is no freedom in China.”
It depends how tight the straitjacket is. Obviously China must have some significant freedoms to produce the kind of economic growth we have seen there. The straitjacket in China has more to do with aspects of politics, philosophy, and religion, and those three forms of censorship, put together, have serious harmful effects on China, and even in some ways on economic life. I wonder what you think of Gordon Chang’s view (he’s with the Wall Street Journal) of the direction of the Chinese economy?
The question is, what limits? I say the only limits should be on provoking violence. Discussing politics, peacefully protesting the actions of rulers, criticizing the rulers in the news, should be legal. The problem with making “insult” illegal, is that what one person considers “offensive,” another person considers true. Those in power can say “you have no good reason” and then throw in jail anyone who criticizes. Soh, the best answer to bad speech is more speech and counterspeech, not jails.
Yes, freedom of speech should permit criticism of rulers and peaceful protest, and peaceful public arguments for different forms of government. Freedom of speech obviously does not mean criminals should be allowed to tell other criminals to go out and kill people.
First Amendment:
I don’t know about you, but I absolutely am talking about what the government can and cannot do.
Yes, I am quite aware from my own studies and discussions with Chinese friends that the meaning of Tao is something of a mystery. I used the term to indicate precisely that — some spiritual something that lives — and because it lives, can only be accessed by collective efforts in freedom. Perhaps the Tao appears in the Bible, where it is said that “the spirit blows where it lists, and no one knows from where it comes or wither it goes.” Alternatively, perhaps Christ was the Tao come to earth for a time. In any event, my point was that the Tao, the spirit, whatever it is, requires freedom.
Soh, thank you very much for stimulating discussion.
Shan Lim says
The word “junzi” is a transliteration of the Chinese character word 君子. Sometimes it is translated into English as a noble man, a gentleman or a superior man. It’s close but not quite. The word 君子 has a deeper meaning that includes the idea of a well cultivated person.