China is never going to be a global model. The Western system is really broken in some fundamental ways, but the Chinese system is not going to work either. It is a deeply unfair and immoral system where everything can be taken away from anyone in a split second.
Francis Fukuyama
Both Hegel and Marx believed that the evolution of human societies was not open-ended, but would end when mankind had achieved a form of society that satisfied its deepest and most fundamental longings. Both thinkers thus posited an “end of history”: for Hegel this was the liberal state, while for Marx it was a communist society. This did not mean that the natural cycle of birth, life, and death would end, that important events would no longer happen, or that newspapers reporting them would cease to be published. It meant, rather, that there would be no further progress in the development of underlying principles and institutions, because all of the really big questions had been settled.
Francis Fukuyama
The end of the Cold War and the Soviet collapse were “the end of history as such: that is, the end-point of mankind’s ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government.”
Francis Fukuyama
The Chinese thought Maoism was the “end-point of mankind’s ideological evolution”. Upon the People’s Republic of China’s foundation in 1949, they emerged from half a century of revolution barely with their wits about them and not much vigour left to stomach what the outside world would make of it all. To an ideologically exhausted Chinese populace, the world’s largest, the refined leftist ideology that had emerged from all their strife was surely “it” for the world, the supreme pinnacle of political thought and activity.
Maoism was the political ideology of Mao Zedong, the founder of the People’s Republic of China (China’s current constitution) and chairman of the Chinese Communist Party from 1935 until his death in 1976. Originally a Marxist-Leninist, the son of a former peasant who had acquired affluence as a farmer and grain dealer, he earned his stripes leading the country’s communist revolution. Mao and Maoism played a critical role in the country’s leftist resurgence, and he served as the principal “architect” of the new China.
The term “Maoism” (毛主义) was created by Mao’s supporters, and Mao himself always rejected it. A devout Marxist-Leninist, he sought to align the world around him with his ideology, the most glorious thing there could possibly ever be as far as he was concerned. Uniquely, the Chinese are now culturally leftist, as in communism and socialism are totally inextricably ingrained in their very culture. China could not possibly adhere to any other form of government these days, a ginormous re-revolution being all that could change that. It was Mao who envisioned this for them.
Deeply troubled by inequality, revolutionary China wholeheartedly embraced the extreme leftist ideology exported from Soviet Russia. Between 1900 and the end of WWII, China had experienced no less than six major famines, which had cost tens of millions of lives. Resolute leftism resonated far more with them than imperial splendour, and Chinese nationalists became enthralled by the feeling of empowerment it afforded them.
Orderly and efficient by default, the Chinese people of today do not need much corralling to be kept in line with the government’s devoutly nationalistic wishes, and so the regime actually has quite a liberal outlook in relative terms, as far as regimes go. It is ultimately about keeping people in line with…
The four layers of Chinese:
- 效 xiào efficacy
- 人 rén personality
- 汉 hàn
- 一 yī uniformity
China is out to displace the West and the USA with their alternative anti-Western reverse model. They are highly ambitious, although somewhat scared by capitalism, and profoundly perturbed by what they perceive to be the Western-led democratic-spirited overriding of cherished “Mao Zedong Thought” as the Chinese Communist Party officially calls it. Unfortunately for them, a Chinese-led world order can only be problematic, due to their stance on human rights as demonstrated by the persecution of the Uyghurs in Xinjiang, as well as by the bleak inadequacies of their contemporary ideology, among other things.
The Chinese really don’t work like we do. They don’t have words in Chinese, only concepts as conveyed by their characters / sinograms / sinographs / 汉字 / hànzì which don’t get divided into separate words within sentences in Chinese writing. Chinese is the Language of Processing, although normally divided into separate Sinitic languages including Mandarin and Cantonese, endowing them with great cognitive efficiency. Studies have shown that Chinese speakers make use of both sides of the brain when speaking Chinese, rather than relying on the left side as in English. Speaking Chinese natively is much more stimulating an experience because of this. Chinese is a Super-Tongue for the enhancement of the capacity for elemental reason, one of the world’s 5 most superior. This effect is achieved through the very structures of the Chinese language, through its core founding “ideology”, and especially in this case through their crafty take on morphology (form of words).
The world’s absolute most superior languages are mainly Oriental anguages – 7 out of the top 10. The “Oriental” languages, as I classify them, include Chinese, Burmese, Tibetan, Mongol, Japanese and Korean. Together the countries in which they are spoken constitute “the Super-Tongue Alliance”, a “de facto” political allegiance of the world’s most linguistically superior peoples for enhancement of rationality, specifically. They are very loyal to each other on this front in order to protect themselves from anti-Oriental racism, which hinges off misunderstanding and ignorance about this very trait.
The current Chinese regime is led by intellectuals – really, by remarkably intelligent Chinese citizens strictly in their capacity as people with well-honed reasoning aptitudes. They can enforce an esoteric order like this thanks to the strengths of Chinese as a Super-Tongue.
I remember having a dream some time ago. This dream was symbolic of Chinese culture. It was perhaps more of a nightmare, I suppose, saturated by an ominous vibe. I dreamt of a space that contained a steeply levelled field of sorts and a sea of chairs with some hibernation boxes at the back/side. We were supposed to be trying to save the Uyghurs.
It showed me how subjects of the regime live under gruelling monotony, and under sempiternal psychological subjugation at the hands of their calculating leaders. They are not allowed to think freely, and when one dares to overstep and disrespect the bounds of the central ideology is when one becomes its victim.
Sinocentrism is now a thing in the world thanks to the language’s scope as a Super-Tongue, again, and the sheer immensity of China’s estimated 1.4-billion-strong population. The Chinese government has been working really hard on this. The world is an amazing but dark place, and while I can only rue its implementation because of the dark shadows being cast, I am compelled by the phenomenon fascinating as it so intrinsically is. We can cite all the statistics that illustrate China’s power, but do people really know how and why China constitutes such a threat to the US-Western agenda?
What do you think about the rise of Sinocentrism?
The Buzz-Concept Project 