Uniting Church and Islamic Council of Victoria board member Nazeem Hussain at odds with Turkey's PM Erogdan

Victoria's peak Muslim body lashes out at 'hysterical' objections to mosques

John Masanauskas
Herald Sun
January 30, 201312:00AM

VICTORIA'S peak Muslim body has lashed out at "hysterical" objections whenever plans for mosques go before local councils.

Islamic Council of Victoria board member Nazeem Hussain said there was an underlying level of Islamophobia in society and Muslims had to do more to educate people about their religion and mosque proposals.

"Multicultural relations often entail very complex histories and interpretations,

Who is lieing here ?  "Moderate" Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan or

Islamic Council of Victoria board member Nazeem Hussain ?

"People are clearly fearful of Muslims and Islam, and it's easy to create that fear and hysteria in some ways," Mr Hussain said.

Several applications are in the spotlight, including a bid by an Afghan community group to build a mosque and community centre in Doveton, on the city's south-east fringe.

The mosque, which would be built next to the future headquarters of evangelical church Catch the Fire Ministries, has been hotly debated by residents and City of Casey councillors.

In Clayton, a Uniting Church congregation has apologised to Islamic groups for suggesting to Monash Council a new mosque could become a training ground for fanatics.

Last year, Whittlesea councillors rejected plans for an Islamic school in Mernda despite council planning officers recommending it.

Mr Hussain said Islamic community applications often were met with hysteria not faced by proposals by other religious groups.

"It speaks to an underlying level of Islamophobia in society and a fear of Muslims moving into neighbourhoods and disrupting locals," he said.

Mr Hussain accused Catch the Fire Ministries pastor Danny Nalliah of creating community divisions by spreading false information about Muslims and the Koran in his opposition to the Doveton mosque.

But Mr Nalliah, who had a long-running legal battle with the Islamic Council over a racial vilification matter, said he had no issue with individual Muslims but objected to violent passages in the Koran.

"I am concerned ... because of what is going to be taught in the mosque based on what is in the Koran," he said.

State Multicultural Affairs and Citizenship Minister Nick Kotsiras said people had the right to object to building proposals on planning grounds.

"To base it on religious grounds is unfair," Mr Kotsiras said.

Last night, Monash Council was due to vote on a plan to build a Monash University-linked mosque in a Clayton residential area.

Monash Uniting Church apologises to Islamic groups over mosque claim
John Masanauskas
Herald Sun
January 29, 201312:33PM

A CHURCH has apologised to Islamic groups for suggesting that an outer-suburban mosque could become a training ground for religious fanatics.

Monash Uniting Church Congregation chairman Richard Farrell had written to Monash Council objecting to plans by an Islamic association to upgrade a house used for prayers to a mosque.

Mr Farrell, who said he was writing on behalf of his church, said the expansion would disturb residents with the call to prayer, and "in effect the mosque is a training ground for religious moderates at one end of the scale and religious fanatics at the other end''.

The site, in Beddoe Ave, Clayton, is owned by Monash University and used by the Islamic Association of Monash Mosque, which says the new building will accommodate a maximum of 185 people.

But the Monash church has apologised after the Uniting Church of Australia Victorian Synod intervened in the controversy.

Synod general secretary the Rev Dr Mark Lawrence said Mr Farrell's claim that the mosque could become a training ground for religious fanatics was outrageous and unacceptable.

"Multicultural relations often entail very complex histories and interpretations,

Who is lieing here ?  "Moderate" Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan or

Islamic Council of Victoria board member Nazeem Hussain or Synod general secretary the Rev Dr Mark Lawrence?

"It goes against the Uniting Church's strong desire to interact with all faiths in a respectful manner,'' he said.

"Multicultural relations often entail very complex histories and interpretations, and there are those in Monash Uniting Church who have experienced oppression and persecution in their countries of birth.

"While these people have understandably brought their concerns to Australia, this does not justify the position taken by the chairperson's statement.''

A synod spokeswoman said the Monash church had withdrawn its objection to the mosque and sent written apologies to the university's Islamic association and to the Islamic Council of Victoria.

"I don't think they really thought through what they were saying,'' she said.

A planning report before Monash Council has recommended approving the proposal, with councillors due to vote on the issue tonight.

There were nine other objections.

Plans for a new mosque in the nearby City of Casey have also generated community debate.

About 1600 people have signed a petition against the mosque, which would be built next to the  headquarters of  evangelical Christian church Catch the Fire Ministries.

Casey Council is expected to consider the application next month.

VCAT's and their Muslim staff,supporters and apologists most INFAMOUS and appallingly vindictive Star Chamber prosecution against Christians in Australia. 

Complaint against Catch the Fire Ministries and Pastors Daniel Scot and Danny Nalliah by the Islamic Council of Victoria.

Full History of what is possibly Australia's first Star Chamber prosecution of two Australians for thought crime, instigated by Muslims and their apologists available at Salt Shakers

Labor Inc. ICAC Obeid Family

Closing on the truth as Obeids take the stand

AMY DALE and VANDA CARSON 

The Daily Telegraph 

January 31, 2013 12:00AM

D-DAY has finally arrived for the Obeid family.

As the state's most explosive ICAC inquiry nears the finish line, today it zeroes in on its targets- with Eddie Obeid and his son Moses due to take the stand.

The hearing has been told of corruption at a level allegedly unseen since the days of the Rum Corps. This morning will see the start of the Obeid corps, with seven relatives to give evidence in coming days.

The former MP's wife Judith was announced as a last-minute addition to today's witness list but it is Moses, her eldest son, who is expected to step into the box first for a grilling over the family's involvement in a multi-million dollar mining venture.

Mr Obeid's four other sons- referred to at the inquiry as "the boys" - will give evidence tomorrow

WEALTHY businessman John McGuigan dropped his head in his hands. He faced up to one of the most embarrassing moments.
Former minister Ian Macdonald allegedly gave the Obeids inside information potentially worth $100 million and rigged the tender process for a coal mining exploration licence in the Bylong Valley.

Mr Macdonald will give evidence next month.

Yesterday, secretly taped phone calls between the major players in the successful bidder Cascade Coal revealed a belief "the shortest distance to a pot of money" was a proposed $500 million takeover to be made after the Obeid family were bought out of the venture. ICAC was played a colourful late night call between Greg Jones, a close friend of Mr Macdonald, and businessman John McGuigan.

The March 2011 call was peppered with expletives and insults directed at Graham Cubbin, a non-executive director at White Energy, the company on the verge of the takeover. Mr McGuigan is heard describing his "discussion with the [Obeid] boys" where he reassured them "this is not some ... Machiavellian play to ... f ... you guys around."

The inquiry heard Cascade Coal wanted the Obeids out of their 25 per cent venture because of the poor association the family's name carried in business, with Mr McGuigan describing their reputation as "an aroma".

Mr Cubbin was considered a thorn in their side by Cascade Coal because of his persistent questions about the Obeid role in the deal, ICAC heard.

"This prick Cubbin who is going ... to have his nuts on the f ..... quartermast," Mr McGuigan is heard to say.

"What I've been thinking is ... how do we get control, how do we manage reputation and what's the shortest distance to a pot of money."

Watching Mr McGuigan give evidence yesterday was a surprise court watcher - former Kings Cross underworld figure and convicted drug dealer Bill Bayeh.

Bayeh, still on parole for dealing in cocaine and heroin from a Double Bay cafe, would not tell The Daily Telegraph who he was there to support.

Australia:Labor's Green Loon nanny state can only rear socialism.

Why a nanny state can only rear socialism.

Ross Fitzgerald
19 January 2013  

Do Australians want to create wealth or simply redistribute what we already have, asks ROSS FITZGERALD

With a federal election to be held this year, Australians must give serious consideration to the impact of policies promoted by Labor and by the Coalition in terms of building greater resilience and self-reliance in our society.

Australia has largely avoided the path taken by some European nations of a massive welfare state funded through high levels of taxation.

 Madame Gillard and  US President Barack Hussein Obama

It is vital that as a nation we remain eternally vigilant against the false appeal of such systems.

This issue came to the fore in last year’s United States presidential election when Mitt Romney was secretly recorded at a fund-raising event telling supporters that “There are 47 per cent of the people who will vote for the president (Obama) no matter what … who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims. … These are people who pay no income tax. … and so my job is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”

The comments were reported as a devastating gaffe that triggered a firestorm of criticism and dogged Romney for the remainder of his campaign.

While his remarks were politically damaging, it also meant that neither presidential contender was prepared to engage in a serious debate as to how the US planned to curtail rising levels of welfare dependency – particularly within the context of its ageing population.

Economist Nicholas Eberstadt’s book published last year titled ‘A Nation of Takers: America’s Entitlement Epidemic’ observed that “The United States is now on the verge of a symbolic threshold: the point at which more than half of all American households receive, and accept, transfer benefits from the government.”

Eberstadt also pointed out that welfare spending accounted for about 33 per cent of the US federal government budget in 1960, a figure that had doubled to about 66 per cent today.

In Australia the Howard government, partly through its focus on increasing employment opportunities, had some success in reversing the trend of increasing welfare payments.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics reports that 28.5 per cent of households were reliant on government pensions and allowances in 1995 but that had fallen to 23.2 per cent in 2007.

This year’s federal government budget of around $376 billion includes $131.7 billion on social security and welfare, or about 35 per cent of the total budget.

Moreover, that percentage is likely to increase significantly in coming years.

Initiatives such as the National Disability Insurance Scheme and the increasing demand for the aged pension due to population ageing will inevitably drive up this expenditure.

Minister Jenny Macklin’s recent claim that she could live on the dole sparked such a backlash that it virtually obliterated the Government’s announcement on changes to single parenting payments aimed at encouraging single parents back into work.

While there always seem to be good arguments for increasing welfare payments, relatively modest increases to the dole during times of low unemployment can balloon rapidly during the inevitable economic downturns of the future.

Senior Fellowq at the Sydney-based Centre for Independent Studies, Robert Carling, pointed out last year that “In democratic welfare states, the proportion of the electorate that attracts more in social benefits from government than it pays in tax has become so large that candidates who promise to curb the welfare state have a hard time winning elections.”

Carling also drew on data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics that showed 60% of households in this country received more in direct social benefits than they paid in taxes. Moreover he argues cogently that, in Australia, the welfare state has gone far beyond the concept of a ‘safety net.’ There is, Carling says, “ a large constituency whose direct financial interests are best served by the preservation or enhancement of social benefits, whether or not that is in their broader self-interest or the national interest.”

The danger is that the growth in welfare spending can always seem to be justified on compassionate grounds and any reductions are often as regarded as heartless. But at some point the system becomes unsustainable as it enters a spiral of ever-higher payments funded through higher taxes.

If unchecked, this could lead to a significant economic and social crisis that would impact more severely on larger numbers of people.

To avoid this slippery slope, one of the priorities for our government must be to provide a policy framework that supports greater levels of self-sufficiency.

After all that is what most Australians strive to personally achieve over their life – working and earning enough income so that they can have a reasonable standard of living, pay off debts and save enough money for retirement.

For many Australians, one of the key milestones in that journey is when the mortgage on the family home is finally paid off. This frees up additional funds and means that there is greater certainty about future accommodation.

Individuals and couples who are mortgage free can obviously live on far lower and less reliable incomes than those encumbered by debt.

The Federal government provides a safety net for older Australians who for various reasons have not been able to save enough to support themselves.

The current maximum payment for the aged pension is $712 per fortnight for individuals or $1073.40 for couples.

For generations past this was often viewed as the only form of income available to older Australians and it was accepted that living on the pension meant a frugal existence in retirement.

Current and future generations have higher expectations for their retirement lifestyles.

For most Australians, the family home will be their largest investment, with superannuation the second largest.

Governments in Australia have played an important role in promoting superannuation, particularly since the Keating government’s visionary decision in 1992 to implement universal compulsory superannuation. The thinking behind this policy was to ensure that more Australians were able to provide for their own retirement – thereby reducing demand on the government for the aged pension.

The ageing of Australia’s population will place increasingly higher demands on government in coming decades as the percentage of older Australians increases as a proportion of the total population.

The Hawke, Keating and Howard Governments all sought to provide a policy environment that encouraged greater levels of self-reliance.

Although the Howard government had a mixed record on superannuation, in its latter years Treasurer Peter Costello introduced a number of reforms that provided significant taxation benefits to those who made additional contributions to their superannuation fund.

This was to encourage greater levels of saving among those approaching retirement age.

It should be safe to assume that Prime Minister Julia Gillard has been briefed on the implications of population ageing. Yet it is extremely disheartening to witness her government making decisions that actively discourage higher levels of saving.

The Gillard government’s record on numerous policy areas has been rightly criticized. Indeed it is hard to identify any area where her government has shone, either in policy design or implementation. From the chaos in its border policies to its ill-fated environmental policies, including the cash-for-clunkers scheme, to its erratic military procurement policies, the current federal government has failed on many fronts.

Sadly, one of its worst efforts has been in the changes to superannuation.

The Gillard government has reduced significantly the amount of money that can be invested in superannuation at lower rates of taxation and greatly increased the taxation penalties for exceeding its new low cap of $25,000 per year.

There have also been a number of policy changes to promote the role of Industry superannuation funds to the disadvantage of private sector funds.

Unions established industry super funds and union officials dominate their boards.

While this may strengthen the power and influence of the union movement, it reduces choice and competition and may lead to a significant number of Australians having lower retirement incomes than may otherwise be the case.

These changes to superannuation should attract far more scrutiny, not least because it is also an example of the PM’s policy instincts. The more the government seeks to intervene, regulate, restrict and interfere in people’s lives the less likely they are to take responsibility their actions. This government has re-embraced the Nanny State concept of taking away personal choice and decision-making.

While there has been considerable focus on Gillard’s less than stellar legal career at Slater and Gordon, we should not overlook the fact that the Prime Minister was once a leading member of the Socialist Forum, which at the time considered the Labor party as too right wing for its liking.

While a number of student politicians mature in their views, it is telling that Gillard’s university politics took her to the far left of the political spectrum.

Theoretically, the ultimate welfare state is a supposedly classless society where individuals do not own capital and the state provides equally for all its citizens.

The choice Australians must soon make is whether to embrace the creeping socialism in the form of Labor’s Nanny State or turn to the ideals of self-reliance and individual responsibility within a government framework that provides an appropriate safety net for those in genuine need.

This year Australians can expect Gillard to continue her campaign to divide the nation along class lines, with wealthier Australians demonized for not paying more tax. She will also seek to portray the Coalition as captives of corporate Australia and protectors of privilege.

This embodies the classic agenda of a primary commitment to redistribute rather than to create wealth. But it also represents a failed theory of a Nanny State that ultimately leads to social and economic collapse.

It is well and truly time to rebalance the national agenda away from such a discredited path.

Emeritus Professor of History and Politics at Griffith University, Ross Fitzgerald is the author of 35 books, most recently the political satire ‘Fools’ Paradise’.

The Daily Telegraph, January 19, 2013, pp106-107

Australia, Portland Victoria,Great White Shark attacks fisihg boat.

Why do we NOT believe those who tell us they want to destoy us ?

War Is Not Far from Us and Is the Midwife of the Chinese Century

Leading CCP official argues for exterminating U.S. population

By Chi Haotian
The Epoch Times
Aug 08, 2005

The following is a transcript of a speech believed to have been given by Mr. Chi Haotian, Minster of Defense and vice-chairman of Chinas Central Military Commission. Independently verifying the authorship of the speech is not possible. It is worth reading because it is believed to set out the CCPs strategy for the development of China. The speech argues for the necessity of China using biological warfare to depopulate the United States and prepare it for a future massive Chinese colonization. The War Is Not Far from Us and Is the Midwife of the Chinese Century was published on February 15, 2005 on www.peacehall.com and was published on www.boxun.com on April 23, 2005. This speech and a related speech, The War Is Approaching Us are analyzed in The Epoch Times original article The CCPs Last-ditch Gamble: Biological and Nuclear War.

Text of the speech:

Comrades,

Im very excited today, because the large-scale online survey sina.com that was done for us showed that our next generation is quite promising and our Partys cause will be carried on. In answering the question, Will you shoot at women, children and prisoners of war, more than 80 percent of the respondents answered in the affirmative, exceeding by far our expectations [1].

Today Id like to focus on why we asked sina.com to conduct this online survey among our people. My speech today is a sequel to my speech last time [2], during which I started with a discussion of the issue of the three islands [3], mentioned that 20 years of the idyllic theme of peace and development had come to an end, and concluded that modernization under the saber is the only option for Chinas next phase. I also mentioned we have a vital stake overseas. Today, Ill speak more specifically on these two issues.

The central issue of this survey appears to be whether one should shoot at women, children and prisoners of war, but its real significance goes far beyond that. Ostensibly, our intention is mainly to figure out what the Chinese peoples attitude towards war is: If these future soldiers do not hesitate to kill even non-combatants, theyll naturally be doubly ready and ruthless in killing combatants. Therefore, the responses to the survey questions may reflect the general attitude people have towards war.

Actually, however, this is not our genuine intention. The purpose of the CCP Central Committee in conducting this survey is to probe peoples minds. We wanted to know: If Chinas global development will necessitate massive deaths in enemy countries, will our people endorse that scenario? Will they be for or against it?

As everybody knows, the essence of Comrade Xiaopings [4] thinking is development is the hard truth. And Comrade Jintao [5] has also pointed out repeatedly and empathetically that development is our top priority, which should not be neglected for even a moment. But many comrades tend to understand development in its narrow sense, assuming it to be limited to domestic development. The fact is, our development refers to the great revitalization of the Chinese nation, which, of course, is not limited to the land we have now but also includes the whole world.

Why do we put it this way?

Both Comrade Liu Huaqing [6], one of the leaders of the old generation in our Party, and Comrade He Xin [7], a young strategist for our Party, have repeatedly stressed the theory regarding the shift of the center of world civilization. Our slogan of revitalizing China has this way of thinking as its basis. You may look into the newspapers and magazines published in recent years or go online to do some research to find out who raised the slogan of national revitalization first. It was Comrade He Xin. Do you know who He Xin is? He may look aggressive and despicable when he speaks in public, with his sleeves and pants all rolled up, but his historical vision is a treasure our Party should cherish.
In discussing this issue, let us start from the beginning.

As everybody knows, according to the views propagated by the Western scholars, humanity as a whole originated from one single mother in Africa. Therefore, no race can claim racial superiority. However, according to the research conducted by most Chinese scholars, the Chinese are different from other races on earth. We did not originate in Africa. Instead, we originated independently in the land of China. The Peking Man at Zhoukoudian that we are all familiar with represents a phase of our ancestors evolution. The Project of Searching for the Origins of the Chinese Civilization currently undertaken in our country is aimed at a more comprehensive and systematic research on the origin, process and development of the ancient Chinese civilization. We used to say, Chinese civilization has had a history of five thousand years. But now, many experts engaged in research in varied fields including archeology, ethnic cultures, and regional cultures have reached consensus that the new discoveries such as the Hongshan Culture in the Northeast, the Liangzhu Culture in Zhejiang province, the Jinsha Ruins in Sichuan province, and the Yongzhou Shun Emperor Cultural Site in Human province are all compelling evidence of the existence of Chinas early civilizations, and they prove that Chinas rice-growing agricultural history alone can be traced back as far as 8,000 to 10,000 years. This refutes the concept of five thousand years of Chinese civilization. Therefore, we can assert that we are the product of cultural roots of more than a million years, civilization and progress of more than ten thousand years, an ancient nation of five thousand years, and a single Chinese entity of two thousand years. This is the Chinese nation that calls itself, descendents of Yan and Huang, the Chinese nation that we are so proud of. Hitlers Germany had once bragged that the German race was the most superior race on Earth, but the fact is, our nation is far superior to the Germans.

During our long history, our people have disseminated throughout the Americas and the regions along the Pacific Rim, and they became Indians in the Americas and the East Asian ethnic groups in the South Pacific.

We all know that on account of our national superiority, during the thriving and prosperous Tang Dynasty our civilization was at the peak of the world. We were the center of the world civilization, and no other civilization in the world was comparable to ours. Later on, because of our complacency, narrow-mindedness, and the self-enclosure of our own country, we were surpassed by Western civilization, and the center of the world shifted to the West.

In reviewing history, one may ask: Will the center of the world civilization shift back to China?

Comrade He Xin put it in his report to the Central Committee in 1988: If the fact is that the center of leadership of the world was located in Europe as of the 18th Century, and later shifted to the United States in the mid 20th Century, then in the 21st Century the center of leadership of the world will shift to the East of our planet. And, the East of course mainly refers to China.

Actually, Comrade Liu Huaqing made similar points in early 1980s. Based on an historical analysis, he pointed out that the center of world civilization is shifting. It shifted from the East to Western Europe and later to the United States; now it is shifting back to the East. Therefore, if we refer to the 19th Century as the British Century, and the 20th century as the American Century, then the 21st Century will be the Chinese Century.

To understand conscientiously this historical law and to be prepared to greet the advent of the Chinese Century is the historical mission of our Party. As we all know, at the end of the last century, we built the Altar to the Chinese Century in Beijing. At the very moment of the arrival of the new millennium, the collective leadership of the Party Central Committee gathered there for a rally, upholding the torches of Zhoukoudian, to pledge themselves to get ready to greet the arrival of the Chinese Century. We were doing this to follow the historical law and setting the realization of the Chinese Century as the goal of our Partys endeavors.

Later, in the political report of our Partys Sixteenth National Congress, we established that the national revitalization be our great objective and explicitly specified in our new Party Constitution that our Party is the pioneer of the Chinese people. All these steps marked a major development in Marxism, reflecting our Partys courage and wisdom. As we all know, Marx and his followers have never referred to any communist party as a pioneer of a certain people; neither did they say that national revitalization could be used as a slogan of a communist party. Even Comrade Mao Zedong, a courageous national hero, only raised high the banner of the global proletarian revolution, but even he did not have the courage to give the loudest publicity to the slogan of national revitalization.

We must greet the arrival of the Chinese Century by raising high the banner of national revitalization. How should we fight for the realization of the Chinese Century? We must borrow the precious experiences in human history by taking advantage of the outstanding fruition of human civilization and drawing lessons from what happened to other ethnic groups.

The lessons include the collapse of communism in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, as well as the defeats of Germany and Japan in the past. Recently there has been much discussion on the lessons of the collapse of communism in the former Soviet Union and Eastern European countries, so I will not dwell on them here. Today Id like to talk about the lessons of Germany and Japan.

As we all know, Nazi Germany also placed much emphasis on the education of the people, especially the younger generation. The Nazi party and government organized and established various propaganda and educational institutions such as the Guiding Bureau of National Propaganda, Department of National Education and Propaganda, Supervising Bureau of Worldview Study and Education, and Information Office, all aimed at instilling into the peoples minds, from elementary schools to colleges, the idea that German people are superior, and convincing people that the historical mission of the Arian people is to become the lords of earth that rule over the world. Back then the German people were much more united than we are today.

Nonetheless, Germany was defeated in utter shame, along with its ally, Japan. Why? We reached some conclusions at the study meetings of the Politburo, in which we were searching for the laws that governed the vicissitudes of the big powers, and trying to analyze Germany and Japans rapid growth. When we decide to revitalize China based on the German model, we must not repeat the mistakes they made.

Specifically, the following are the fundamental causes for their defeat: First, they had too many enemies all at once, as they did not adhere to the principle of eliminating enemies one at a time; second, they were too impetuous, lacking the patience and perseverance required for great accomplishments; third, when the time came for them to be ruthless, they turned out to be too soft, therefore leaving troubles that resurfaced later on.

Lets presume that back then Germany and Japan had been able to keep the United States neutral and had fought a protracted war step by step on the Soviet front. If they had adopted this approach, gained some time to advance their research, eventually succeeded in obtaining the technology of nuclear weapons and missiles, and launched surprise attacks against the United States and the Soviet Union using them, then the United States and the Soviet Union would not have been able to defend themselves and would have had to surrender. Little Japan, in particular, made an egregious mistake in launching the sneak strike at Pearl Harbor. This attack did not hit the vital parts of the United States. Instead it dragged the United States into the war, into the ranks of the gravediggers that eventually buried the German and Japanese fascists.

Of course, if they had not made these three mistakes and won the war, history would have been written in a different fashion. If that had been the case, China would not be in our hands. Japan might have relocated their capital to China and ruled over China. Afterwards, China and the whole of Asia under Japans command would have brought into full play the oriental wisdom, conquered the West ruled by Germany and unified the whole world. This is irrelevant, of course. No more digressions.

So, the fundamental reason for the defeats of Germany and Japan is that history did not arrange them to be the lords of the earth, for they are, after all, not the most superior race.

Ostensibly, in comparison, todays China is alarmingly similar to Germany back then. Both of them regard themselves as the most superior races; both of them have a history of being exploited by foreign powers and are therefore vindictive; both of them have the tradition of worshipping their own authorities; both of them feel that they have seriously insufficient living space; both of them raise high the two banners of nationalism and socialism and label themselves as national socialism; both of them worship one state, one party, one leader, and one doctrine.

And yet, if we really are to make a comparison between Germany and China, then, as Comrade Jiang Zemin put it, Germany belongs to pediatrics too trivial to be compared. How large is Germanys population? How big is its territory? And how long is its history? We eliminated eight million Nationalist troops in only three years. How many enemies did Germany kill? They were in power for a transient period of little more than a dozen years before they perished, while we are still energetic after being around for more than eighty years. Our theory of the shifting center of civilization is of course more profound than the Hitlers theory of the lords of the earth. Our civilization is profound and broad, which has determined that we are so much wiser than they were.

Our Chinese people are wiser than the Germans because, fundamentally, our race is superior to theirs. As a result, we have a longer history, more people, and larger land area. On this basis, our ancestors left us with the two most essential heritages, which are atheism and great unity. It was Confucius, the founder of our Chinese culture, who gave us these heritages.

These two heritages determined that we have a stronger ability to survive than the West. That is why the Chinese race has been able to prosper for so long. We are destined not to be buried by either heaven or earth no matter how severe the natural, man-made, and national disasters. This is our advantage.

Take response to war as an example. The reason that the United States remains today is that it has never seen war on its mainland. Once its enemies aim at the mainland, they enemies would have already reached Washington before its congress finishes debating and authorizes the president to declare war. But for us, we dont waste time on these trivial things. Comrade Deng Xiaoping once said, The Partys leadership is prompt in making decisions. Once a decision is made, it is immediately implemented. Theres no wasting time on trivial things like in capitalist countries. This is our advantage. Our Partys democratic centralism is built on the tradition of great unity. Although fascist Germany also stressed high-level centralism, they only focused on the power of the countrys executive, but ignored the collective leadership of the central group. Thats why Hitler was betrayed by many later in his life, which fundamentally depleted the Nazis of their war capacity.

What makes us different from Germany is that we are complete atheists, while Germany was primarily a Catholic and Protestant country. Hitler was only half atheist. Although Hitler also believed that ordinary citizens had low intelligence, and that leaders should therefore make decisions, and although German people worshipped Hitler back then, Germany did not have the tradition of worshipping sages on a broad basis. Our Chinese society has always worshipped sages, and that is because we dont worship any god. Once you worship a god, you cant worship a person at the same time, unless you recognize the person as the gods representative like they do in Middle Eastern countries. On the other hand, once you recognize a person as a sage, of course you will want him to be your leader, instead of monitoring and choosing him. This is the foundation of our democratic centralism.

The bottom line is, only China, not Germany, is a reliable force in resisting the Western parliament-based democratic system. Hitlers dictatorship in Germany was perhaps but a momentary mistake in history.

Maybe you have now come to understand why we recently decided to further promulgate atheism. If we let theology from the West into China and empty us from the inside, if we let all Chinese people listen to God and follow God, who will obediently listen to us and follow us? If the common people dont believe Comrade Hu Jintao is a qualified leader, question his authority, and want to monitor him, if the religious followers in our society question why we are leading God in churches, can our Party continue to rule China?

Germanys dream to be the lord of the earth failed, because ultimately, history did not bestow this great mission upon them. But the three lessons Germany learned from experience are what we ought to remember as we complete our historic mission and revitalize our race. The three lessons are: Firmly grasp the countrys living space, firmly grasp the Partys control over the nation, and firmly grasp the general direction toward becoming the lord of the earth.

Next, Id like to address these three issues.

The first issue is living space. This is the biggest focus of the revitalization of the Chinese race. In my last speech, I said that the fight over basic living resources (including land and ocean) is the source of the vast majority of wars in history. This may change in the information age, but not fundamentally. Our per capita resources are much less than those of Germanys back then. In addition, economic development in the last twenty-plus years had a negative impact, and climates are rapidly changing for the worse. Our resources are in very short supply. The environment is severely polluted, especially that of soil, water, and air. Not only our ability to sustain and develop our race, but even its survival is gravely threatened, to a degree much greater than faced Germany back then.

China poised to play debt card – for U.S. land
Communist nation could control American land as ‘development zones’
(Dr. Jerome R. Corsi) – Could real estate on American soil owned by China be set up as “development zones” in which the communist nation could establish Chinese-owned businesses and bring in its citizens to the U.S. to work?
That’s part of an evolving proposal Beijing has been developing quietly since 2009 to convert more than $1 trillion of U.S debt it owns into equity.

Anybody who has been to Western countries knows that their living space is much better than ours. They have forests alongside the highways, while we hardly have any trees by our streets. Their sky is often blue with white clouds, while our sky is covered with a layer of dark haze. Their tap water is clean enough for drinking, while even our ground water is so polluted that it cant be drunk without filtering. They have few people in the streets, and two or three people can occupy a small residential building; in contrast, our streets are always crawling with people, and several people have to share one room.


Many years ago, there was a book titled Yellow Catastrophes. It said that, due to our following the American style of consumption, our limited resources would no longer support the population and society would collapse, once our population reaches 1.3 billion. Now our population has already exceeded this limit, and we are now relying on imports to sustain our nation. Its not that we havent paid attention to this issue. The Ministry of Land Resources is specialized in this issue.

But the term living space (lebensraum) is too closely related to Nazi Germany. The reason we dont want to discuss this too openly is to avoid the Wests association of us with Nazi Germany, which could in turn reinforce the view that China is a threat. Therefore, in our emphasis on He Xins new theory, Human rights are just living rights, we only talk about living, but not space, so as to avoid using the term living space. From the perspective of history, the reason that China is faced with the issue of living space is because Western countries have developed ahead of Eastern countries. Western countries established colonies all around the world, therefore giving themselves an advantage on the issue of living space. To solve this problem, we must lead the Chinese people outside of China, so that they could develop outside of China.

The second issue is our focus on the leadership capacity of the ruling party. Weve done better on this than their party. Although the Nazis spread their power to every aspect of the German national government, they did not stress their absolute leadership position like we have. They did not take the issue of managing the power of the party as first priority, which we have. When Comrade Mao Zedong summarized the three treasures of our partys victory in conquering the country, he considered the most important treasure to be developing the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and strengthening its leadership position.

We have to focus on two points to fortify our leadership position and improve our leadership capacity.

The first is to promote the Three Represents theory [8], stressing that our Party is the pioneer of the Chinese race, in addition to being the pioneer of the proletariat. Many citizens say in private, We never voted for you, the Communist Party, to represent us. How can you claim to be our representatives?

Theres no need to worry about this issue. Comrade Mao Zedong said that if we could lead our allies to victory and make them benefit, they would support us. Therefore, as long as we can lead the Chinese people outside of China, resolving the lack of living space in China, the Chinese people will support us. At that time, we dont have to worry about the labels of totalitarianism or dictatorship. Whether we can forever represent the Chinese people depends on whether we can succeed in leading the Chinese people out of China.

The second point, whether we can lead the Chinese people out of China, is the most important determinant of the CCPs leadership position.

Why do I say this?

Everyone knows that without the leadership of our Party, China would not exist today. Therefore, our highest principle is to forever protect our Partys leadership position. Before June 4, we realized vaguely that as long as Chinas economy is developed, people would support and love the Communist Party. Therefore we had to use several decades of peacetime to develop Chinas economy. No matter what -isms, whether it is a white cat or a black cat, it is a good cat if it can develop Chinas economy. But at that time, we did not have mature ideas about how China would deal with international disputes after its economy is developed.

Comrade Xiaoping said then that the main themes in the world were peace and development. But the June 4 riot gave our Party a warning and gave us a lesson that is still fresh. The pressure of Chinas peaceful evolution makes us reconsider the main themes of our time. We see that neither of these two issues, peace and development, have been resolved. The western oppositional forces always change the world according to their own visions; they want to change China and use peaceful evolution to overturn the leadership of our Communist Party. Therefore, if we only develop the economy, we still face the possibility of losing control.

That June 4 riot almost succeeded in bringing a peaceful transition; if it were not for the fact that a large number of veteran comrades were still alive and at a crucial moment they removed Zhao Ziyang and his followers, then we all would have been put in prison. After death we would have been too ashamed to report to Marx. Although we have passed the test of June 4, after our group of senior comrades pass away, without our control, peaceful evolution may still come to China like it did to the former Soviet Union. In 1956, they suppressed the Hungarian Incident and defeated the attacks by Titos revisionists of Yugoslavia, but they could not withstand Gorbachev thirty some years later. Once those pioneering senior comrades died, the power of the Communist Party was taken away by peaceful evolution.

After the June 4 riot was suppressed, we have been thinking about how to prevent China from peaceful evolution and how to maintain the Communist Partys leadership. We thought it over and over but did not come up with any good ideas. If we do not have good ideas, China will inevitably change peacefully, and we will all become criminals in history. After some deep pondering, we finally come to this conclusion: Only by turning our developed national strength into the force of a fist striking outwardonly by leading people to go out can we win forever the Chinese peoples support and love for the Communist Party. Our Party will then stand on invincible ground, and the Chinese people will have to depend on the Communist Party. They will forever follow the Communist Party with their hearts and minds, as was written in a couplet frequently seen in the countryside some years ago: Listen to Chairman Mao, Follow the Communist Party! Therefore, the June 4 riot made us realize that we must combine economic development with preparation for war and leading the people to go out! Therefore, since then, our national defense policy has taken a 180 degree turn and we have since emphasized more and more combining peace and war. Our economic development is all about preparing for the need of war! Publicly we still emphasize economic development as our center, but in reality, economic development has war as its center! We have made a tremendous effort to construct The Great Wall Project to build up, along our coastal and land frontiers as well as around large and medium-sized cities, a solid underground Great Wall that can withstand a nuclear war. We are also storing all necessary war materials. Therefore, we will not hesitate to fight a Third World War, so as to lead the people to go out and to ensure the Partys leadership position. In any event, we, the CCP, will never step down from the stage of history! Wed rather have the whole world, or even the entire globe, share life and death with us than step down from the stage of history!!! Isnt there a nuclear bondage theory? It means that since nuclear weapons have bound the security of the entire world, all will die together if death is inevitable. In my view, there is another kind of bondage, and that is, the fate our Party is tied up with that of the whole world. If we, the CCP, are finished, China will be finished, and the world will be finished.

Our Partys historical mission is to lead the Chinese people to go out. If we take the long view, we will see that history led us on this path. First, Chinas long history has resulted in the worlds largest population, including Chinese in China as well as overseas. Second, once we open our doors, the profit-seeking western capitalists will invest capital and technology in China to assist our development, so that they can occupy the biggest market in the world. Third, our numerous overseas Chinese help us create the most favorable environment for the introduction of foreign capital, foreign technology and advanced experience into China. Thus, it is guaranteed that our reform and open-door policy will achieve tremendous success. Fourth, Chinas great economic expansion will inevitably lead to the shrinkage of per-capita living space for the Chinese people, and this will encourage China to turn outward in search for new living space. Fifth, Chinas great economic expansion will inevitably come with a significant development in our military forces, creating conditions for our expansion overseas. Even since Napoleons time, the West has been has been alert for the possible awakening of the sleeping lion that is China. Now, the sleeping lion is standing up and advancing into the world, and has become unstoppable!

What is the third issue we should clinch firmly in order to accomplish our historical mission of national renaissance? It is to hold firmly onto the big issue of America.

Comrade Mao Zedong taught us that we must have a resolute and correct political orientation. What is our key, correct orientation? It is to solve the issue of America.

This appears to be shocking, but the logic is actually very simple.

Comrade He Xin put forward a very fundamental judgment that is very reasonable. He asserted in his report to the Party Central Committee: The renaissance of China is in fundamental conflict with the western strategic interest, and therefore will inevitably be obstructed by the western countries doing everything they can. So, only by breaking the blockade formed by the western countries headed by the United States can China grow and move towards the world!

Would the United States allow us to go out to gain new living space? First, if the United States is firm in blocking us, it is hard for us to do anything significant to Taiwan and some other countries! Second, even if we could snatch some land from Taiwan, Vietnam, India, or even Japan, how much more living space can we get? Very trivial! Only countries like the United States, Canada and Australia have the vast land to serve our need for mass colonization.

Therefore, solving the issue of America is the key to solving all other issues. First, this makes it possible for us to have many people migrate there and even establish another China under the same leadership of the CCP. America was originally discovered by the ancestors of the yellow race, but Columbus gave credit to the white race. We the descendents of the Chinese nation are entitled to the possession of the land! It is said that the residents of the yellow race have a very low social status in United States. We need to liberate them. Second, after solving the issue of America, the western countries in Europe would bow to us, not to mention to Taiwan, Japan and other small countries. Therefore, solving the issue of America is the mission assigned to CCP members by history.

I sometimes think how cruel it is for China and the United States to be enemies that are bound to meet on a narrow road! Do you remember a movie about Liberation Army troops led by Liu Bocheng and Deng Xiaoping? The title is something like Decisive Battle on the Central Plains. There is a famous remark in the movie that is full of power and grandeur: The enemies are bound to meet on a narrow road, only the brave will win! It is this kind of fighting to win or die spirit that enabled us to seize power in Mainland China. It is historical destiny that China and United States will come into unavoidable confrontation on a narrow path and fight each other! The United States, unlike Russia and Japan, has never occupied and hurt China, and also assisted China in its battle against the Japanese. But, it will certainly be an obstruction, and the biggest obstruction! In the long run, the relationship of China and the United States is one of a life-and-death struggle.

One time, some Americans came to visit and tried to convince us that the relationship between China and United States is one of interdependence. Comrade Xiaoping replied in a polite manner: Go tell your government, China and the United States do not have such a relationship that is interdependent and mutually reliant. Actually, Comrade Xiaoping was being too polite, he could have been more frank, The relationship between China and United States is one of a life-and-death struggle. Of course, right now it is not the time to openly break up with them yet. Our reform and opening to the outside world still rely on their capital and technology, we still need America. Therefore, we must do everything we can to promote our relationship with America, learn from America in all aspects and use America as an example to reconstruct our country.

How have we managed our foreign affairs in these years? Even if we had to put on a smiling face in order to please them, even if we had to give them the right cheek after they had hit our left cheek, we still must endure in order to further our relationship with the United States. Do you remember the character of Wuxun in the movie the Story of Wuxun? In order to accomplish his mission, he endured so much pain and suffered so much beating and kicking! The United States is the most successful country in the world today. Only after we have learned all of its useful experiences can we replace it in the future. Even though we are presently imitating the American tone China and United States rely on each other and share honor and disgrace, we must not forget that the history of our civilization repeatedly has taught us that one mountain does not allow two tigers to live together.

We also must never forget what Comrade Xiaoping emphasized refrain from revealing the ambitions and put others off the track. The hidden message is: we must put up with America; we must conceal our ultimate goals, hide our capabilities and await the opportunity. In this way, our mind is clear. Why have we not updated our national anthem with something peaceful? Why did we not change the anthems theme of war? Instead, when revising the Constitution this time, for the first time we clearly specified March of the Volunteers is our national anthem. Thus we will understand why we constantly talk loudly about the Taiwan issue but not the American issue. We all know the principle of doing one thing under the cover of another. If ordinary people can only see the small island of Taiwan in their eyes, then you as the elite of our country should be able to see the whole picture of our cause. Over these years, according to Comrade Xiaopings arrangement, a large piece of our territory in the North has been given up to Russia; do you really think our Party Central Committee is a fool?

To resolve the issue of America we must be able to transcend conventions and restrictions. In history, when a country defeated another country or occupied another country, it could not kill all the people in the conquered land, because back then you could not kill people effectively with sabers or long spears, or even with rifles or machine guns. Therefore, it was impossible to gain a stretch of land without keeping the people on that land. However, if we conquered America in this fashion, we would not be able to make many people migrate there.

Only by using special means to clean up America will we be able to lead the Chinese people there. This is the only choice left for us. This is not a matter of whether we are willing to do it or not. What kind of special means is there available for us to clean up America? Conventional weapons such as fighters, canons, missiles and battleships wont do; neither will highly destructive weapons such as nuclear weapons. We are not as foolish as to want to perish together with America by using nuclear weapons, despite the fact that we have been exclaiming that we will have the Taiwan issue resolved at whatever cost. Only by using non-destructive weapons that can kill many people will we be able to reserve America for ourselves. There has been rapid development of modern biological technology, and new bio weapons have been invented one after another. Of course we have not been idle; in the past years we have seized the opportunity to master weapons of this kind. We are capable of achieving our purpose of cleaning up America all of a sudden. When Comrade Xiaoping was still with us, the Party Central Committee had the perspicacity to make the right decision not to develop aircraft carrier groups and focus instead on developing lethal weapons that can eliminate mass populations of the enemy country.

From a humanitarian perspective, we should issue a warning to the American people and persuade them to leave America and leave the land they have lived in to the Chinese people. Or at least they should leave half of the United States to be Chinas colony, because America was first discovered by the Chinese. But would this work? If this strategy does not work, then there is only one choice left to us. That is, use decisive means to clean up America, and reserve America for our use in a moment. Our historical experience has proven that as long as we make it happen, nobody in the world can do anything about us. Furthermore, if the United States as the leader is gone, then other enemies have to surrender to us.

Biological weapons are unprecedented in their ruthlessness, but if the Americans do not die then the Chinese have to die. If the Chinese people are strapped to the present land, a total societal collapse is bound to take place. According to the computation of the author of Yellow Peril, more than half of the Chinese will die, and that figure would be more than 800 million people! Just after the liberation, our yellow land supported nearly 500 million people, while today the official figure of the population is more than 1.3 billion. This yellow land has reached the limit of its capacity. One day, who knows how soon it will come, the great collapse will occur any time and more than half of the population will have to go.

We must prepare ourselves for two scenarios. If our biological weapons succeed in the surprise attack [on the United States], the Chinese people will be able to keep their losses at a minimum in the fight against the United States. If, however, the attack fails and triggers a nuclear retaliation from the United States, China would perhaps suffer a catastrophe in which more than half of its population would perish. That is why we need to be ready with air defense systems for our big and medium-sized cities. Whatever the case may be, we can only move forward fearlessly for the sake of our Party and state and our nations future, regardless of the hardships we have to face and the sacrifices we have to make. The population, even if more than half dies, can be reproduced. But if the Party falls, everything is gone, and forever gone!

In Chinese history, in the replacement of dynasties, the ruthless have always won and the benevolent have always failed. The most typical example involved Xiang Yu the King of Chu, who, after defeating Liu Bang, failed to continue to chase after him and eliminate his forces, and this leniency resulted in Xiang Yus death and Lius victory (during the war between Chu and Han, just after the Qin Dynasty (221-206BC) was overthrown). Therefore, we must emphasize the importance of adopting resolute measures. In the future, the two rivals, China and the United States, will eventually meet each other in a narrow road, and our leniency to the Americans will mean cruelty toward the Chinese people. 　　 Here some people may want to ask me: what about the several millions of our compatriots in the United States? They may ask: arent we against Chinese killing other Chinese?

These comrades are too pedantic; they are not pragmatic enough. If we had insisted on the principle that the Chinese should not kill other Chinese, would we have liberated China? As for the several million Chinese living in the United States, this is of course a big issue. Therefore in recent years, we have been conducting research on genetic weapons, i.e. those weapons that do not kill yellow people. But producing a result with this kind of research is extremely difficult. Of the research done on genetic weapons throughout the world, the Israelis is the most advanced. Their genetic weapons are designed to target Arabs and protect the Israelis. But even they have not reached the stage of actual deployment. We have cooperated with Israel on some research. Perhaps we can introduce some of the technologies used to protect Israelis and remold these technologies to protect the yellow people. But their technologies are not mature yet, and it is difficult for us to surpass them in a few years. If it has to be five or ten years before some breakthroughs can be achieved in genetic weapons, we cannot afford to wait any longer.

Old comrades like us cannot afford to wait that long, for we dont have that much time to live. Old soldiers of my age may be able to wait for five or ten more years, but those from the period of the Anti-Japanese War or the few old Red Army soldiers cannot wait any longer. Therefore we have to give up our expectations about genetic weapons. Of course, from another perspective, the majority of those Chinese living in the United States have become our burden, because they have been corrupted by the bourgeois liberal values for a long time and it would be difficult for them to accept our Partys leadership. If they survived the war, we would have to launch campaigns in the future to deal with them, to reform them. Do you still remember that when we had just defeated the Koumintang (KMT) and liberated Mainland China, so many people from the bourgeois class and intellectuals welcomed us so very warmly, but later we had to launch campaigns such as the suppression of the reactionaries and Anti-Rightist Movement to clean them up and reform them? Some of them were in hiding for a long time and were not exposed until the Cultural Revolution. History has proved that any social turmoil is likely to involve many deaths. Maybe we can put it this way: death is the engine that moves history forward. During the period of Three Kingdoms [9], how many people died? When Genghis Khan conquered Eurasia, how many people died? When Manchu invaded the interior of China, how many people died? Not many people died during the 1911 Revolution, but when we overthrew the Three Great Mountains [10], and during the political campaigns such as Suppression of reactionaries, Three-Anti Campaign, and Five-Anti Campaign at least 20 million people died. We were apprehensive that some young people today would be trembling with fear when they hear about wars or people dying. During wartime, we were used to seeing dead people. Blood and flesh were flying everywhere, corpses were lying in heaps on the fields, and blood ran like rivers. We saw it all. On the battlefields, everybodys eyes turned red with killing because it was a life-and-death struggle and only the brave would survive.

It is indeed brutal to kill one or two hundred million Americans. But that is the only path that will secure a Chinese century, a century in which the CCP leads the world. We, as revolutionary humanitarians, do not want deaths. But if history confronts us with a choice between deaths of Chinese and those of Americans, wed have to pick the latter, as, for us, it is more important to safeguard the lives of the Chinese people and the life of our Party. That is because, after all, we are Chinese and members of the CCP. Since the day we joined the CCP, the Partys life has always been above all else! History will prove that we made the right choice.

Now, when I am about to finish my speech, you probably understand why we conducted this online survey. Simply put, through conducting this online survey we wanted to know whether the people would rise against us if one day we secretly adopt resolute means to clean up America. Would more people support us or oppose us? This is our basic judgment: if our people approve of shooting at prisoners of war, women and children, then they would approve our cleaning up America. For over twenty years, China has been enjoying peace, and a whole generation has not been tested by war. In particular, since the end of World War II, there have been many changes in the formats of war, the concept of war and the ethics of war. Especially since the collapse of the former Soviet Union and Eastern European Communist states, the ideology of the West has come to dominate the world as a whole, and the Western theory of human nature and Western view of human rights have increasingly disseminated among the young people in China. Therefore, we were not very sure about the peoples attitude. If our people are fundamentally opposed to cleaning up America, we will, of course, have to adopt corresponding measures.

Why didnt we conduct the survey through administrative means instead of through the web? We did what we did for a good reason.

First of all, we did it to reduce artificial inference and to make sure that we got the true thoughts of the people. In addition, it is more confidential and wont reveal the true purpose of our survey. But what is most important is the fact that most of the people who are able to respond to the questions online are from social groups that are relatively well-educated and intelligent. They are the hard-core and leading groups that play a decisive role among our people. If they support us, then the people as a whole will follow us; if they oppose us, they will play the dangerous role of inciting people and creating social disturbance.

What turned out to be very comforting is they did not turn in a blank test paper. In fact, they turned in a test paper with a score of over 80. This is the excellent fruition of our Partys work in propaganda and education over the past few decades.

Of course, a few people under the Western influence have objected to shooting at prisoners of war and women and children. Some of them said, It is shocking and scary to witness so many people approving of shooting at women and children. Is everybody crazy? Some others said, The Chinese love to label themselves as a peace-loving people, but actually they are the most ruthless people. The comments are resonant of killing and murdering, sending chills to my heart.

Although there are not too many people holding this kind of viewpoint and they will not affect the overall situation in any significant way, but we still need to strengthen the propaganda to respond to this kind of argument.

That is to vigorously propagate Comrade He Xin's latest article, which has already been reported to the central government. You may look it up on the website.

If you get on the website using key words to search, you will find out that a while ago, comrade He Xin pointed out to the Hong Kong Business News during an interview that: "The US has a shocking conspiracy." According to what he had in hand, from September 27 to October 1, 1995, the Mikhail Sergeevich Gorbachv Foundation, funded by the United States, gathered 500 of the worlds most important statesmen, economic leaders and scientists, including George W. Bush (he was not the US president at the time), the Baroness Thatcher, Tony Blair, Zbigniew Brzezinski, as well as George Soros, Bill Gates, futurist John Naisbitt, etc., all of the worlds most popular characters, in the San Francisco Fairmont hotel for a high-level round table conference, discussing problems about globalization and how to guide humanity to move forward into the 21st century. According to what He Xin had in hand, the outstanding people of the world in attendance thought that in the 21st century a mere 20% of the worlds population will be sufficient to maintain the worlds economy and prosperity, the other 80% or 4/5 of the worlds population will be human garbage unable to produce new values. The people in attendance thought that this excess 80% population would be a trash population and "high-tech" means should be used to eliminate them gradually.

Since the enemies are secretly planning to eliminate our population, we certainly cannot be infinitely merciful and compassionate to them. Comrade He Xin's article came out at the right time, it has proven the correctness of our tit for tat battle approach, has proven Comrade Deng Xiaopings great foresight to deploy against the United States military strategy.

Certainly, in spreading Comrade He Xins views, we cannot publish the article in the party newspapers, in order to avoid raising the enemys vigilance. He Xin's conversation may remind the enemy that we have grasped the modern science and technology, including "clean" nuclear technology, gene weapons technology as well as biological weapons technology, and we can use powerful measures to eliminate their population on a large-scale.

The last problem I want to talk about is of firmly seizing the preparations for military battle.

Currently, we are at the cross road of moving forward or backward. Some comrades saw problems flooding everywhere in our countrythe corruption problem, the state-owned enterprise problem, the banks bad accounts problem, environmental problems, society security problems, education problems, the AIDS problem, various appeals problem, even the riots problem. These comrades vacillated in the determination to prepare for the military battle. They thought; they should first grab the political reform problem, that is, our own political reform comes first. After resolving the domestic problems, we can then deal with the foreign military battle problem.

This reminds me of the crucial period in 1948 in the Chinese revolution. At that time, the People's Liberation Armys horses were drinking water in Yangtze River, but they faced extremely complex situations and difficult problems everywhere in the liberated areas, and the central authority received emergency reports daily. What to do? Should we stop to manage rear areas and internal matters first before moving forward, or press on to pass the Yangtze River with one vigorous effort? Chairman Mao, with his extraordinary wisdom and mettle, gave the marching order "Carry on the revolution to the end," and liberated all of China. The previously thought "serious" conflicting problems were all resolved in this great forward moving revolutionary wave.

Now, it seems like we are in the same critical period as the horses were drinking water in the Yangtze River days in the revolutionary era, as long as we firmly seize the most basic principle of preparing for the military battle. The central committee believes, as long as we resolve the United States problem at one blow, our domestic problems will all be readily solved. Therefore, our military battle preparation appears to aim at Taiwan, but in fact is aimed at the United States, and the preparation is far beyond the scope of attacking aircraft carriers or satellites.

Marxism pointed out that violence is the midwife for the birth of the new society. Therefore war is the midwife for the birth of Chinas century. As war approaches, I am full of hope for our next generation.


Notes:

[1] Sina.com is one of the largest on-line media corporations in China. The on-line survey was launched by sina.coms branch Sina Military (jczs.sina.com.cn). It started on February 2 and ended on March 1, 2004 and there were 31,872 persons who filled out the survey. The web page for this on-line survey is at http://jczs.sina.com.cn/2004-02-02/1644180066.html but this page has been removed and cannot be viewed.

The question was If you are a solider, and if are under the orders of your commanding officers, will you shoot at women, children and prisoners of war? 34% of the visitors answered they would shoot under any circumstances even without permission from their commanding officer. 48.6% of the visitors replied that they would shoot when the lives of themselves or their companies are threatened. Only 3.8% of the participants held they would not shoot under any circumstances. Those who agreed to shoot were mostly under the age of 25.

[2] War Is Approaching Us

[3] Three islands refer to Taiwan, Diaoyu Islands, and Spratly Islands.

[4] Deng Xiaoping (1904-1997). Officially, Deng was the leader of the CCP and China from 1978-89. Actually, after Mao's death in 1976 Deng became the de facto leader of China until Deng finally died in 1997.

[5] Hu Jintao (1942-). Leader of the "fourth generation" of CCP officials. In 2003, Hu became President of the People's Republic of China.

[6] Liu Huaqing (1916-). Commander of the Chinese People's Liberation Army Navy from 1982 through 1988, vice-chairman of Chinas Central Military Commission (until 1997). Liu is considered to be responsible for the PLAs modernization efforts.

[7] He Xin (1949-). Senior Fellow of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.

[8] Three Represents states that the CCP represents the requirement to develop advanced productive forces, an orientation towards advanced culture, and the fundamental interests of the overwhelming majority of the people in China. It was put forward by Jiang Zemin, former Chinese president.

[9] Three Kingdoms refer to Wei, Shu, and Wu, three countries that overlapped the land of China during the period A.D. 220-80.

[10] Three great mountains were said according to the CCP to have weighed on the backs of the Chinese peopleimperialism, feudalism and bureaucratic-capitalism.

The original Chinese article is available at: http://epochtimes.com/gb/5/8/1/n1003911.htm