International, Politics, Society

Look, Comrades, No Lines!: China’s New Leader Announced With The Rise Of The “Red Nobility” Class

We previously discussed how the United States was sharply criticized in a government-supported newspaper in China for the long lines of voters who had to wait for hours to cast their ballots. Now, the happiest place on Earth, has announced its new leader: Xi Jinging. Xi was selected without any lines of citizens, who of course were not allowed to vote at all.

The regular decade transition occurred by an orchestrated vote of the Community Party Congress with his appointment as general secretary after a meeting of senior Communists. The Chinese people were informed of the selection as Xi walked into the Great Hall of the People with other Politburo members.

The rise of Xi to power is viewed as another affirmation of a new “red nobility” class — leaders who come from families with a long communist power pedigree. Xi is the son of a hero of the revolution and three other members have similar family ties. With continuing scandals involving the gathering of huge wealth by Communist leaders, China now fits every definition of an aristocracy using Communist controls to protect its power and wealth. Think of Louis XIV in a Mao jacket.

Source: CBS

189 thoughts on “Look, Comrades, No Lines!: China’s New Leader Announced With The Rise Of The “Red Nobility” Class”

  4. If you used AC/DC you’d run the risk of being mistaken for Angus Young or someone who at least likes to wear shorts and suspenders in public. 😉

  5. You seriously should consider another pseudonym. When Blouise mentioned AP, AP, my first thought was contacting the Apple Store for a download, then I realized she was referring to you. What about Anonymously Commented……..AC………….Oh snap, then I’d confuse it with electricity. -Mike S.

    lol, Mike S.

    Thought I’d tried out AP/AC, but it’s looks a lot like AIPAC… AA for always anonymous (though one is never really “anonymous”), but I don’t want to be confused with “AA”… Anyway, thanks for the laugh.

  6. Mike,

    “No one here in their remarks tried to censor Nick and that is why I deem it a false equivalency. A problem that I’ve noticed when you’ve been around here as long as you and I, is my assumption that everyone understands where I am on an issue. It ain’t necessarily so I’ve found.”

    Hence the importance of making the distinction between criticism and censorship once again. It would have been a false equivalence had I argued nick was being censored. That was never my contention. My contention came into play when others starting promoting PC language as a virtue which created an opening for pointing out the both the deficiency of the idea of PC speech and illustrating the difference between censorship and criticism. I understand your technical quibble, I just don’t agree with it and on the grounds stated, namely that my argument isn’t about nick directly. It’s about PC language and the nature of control.

  7. AP,

    You seriously should consider another pseudonym. When Blouise mentioned AP, AP, my first thought was contacting the Apple Store for a download, then I realized she was referring to you. What about Anonymously Commented……..AC………….Oh snap, then I’d confuse it with electricity. It’s hard being a literal, liberal. 🙂

  10. And if you don’t think I’d call you a douche bag in person, nick, that would be your mistake.

    Douche bag.

  11. Mike,

    The issue of politically correct speech is inherently entangled in the argument of free speech under the 1st Amendment ergo it’s not a false equivalence but a one to one equivalence because the issue is censorship of language. The whole issue of political correctness came into play the instant “control” was mentioned. Now did I say that you, Mike, were trying to censor nick? No. I did not. You were critical, but not censoring and you were quite specific about that in defending his right to say what he said even in disapproving of what he said (which is similar to others comments, including mine). As we both know, no one’s ideas are free from challenge. No one is saying you were wrong to challenge nick about the content of his “joke”. Quite the opposite actually. However, control is another issue. Once the PC ball was up into play, others ran with it (even under misnomers) and the consensus argument was that PC was a good thing. That it was brought in the context of a third party personal feud is irrelevant to the topic of PC versus free speech being relevant to the conversation as a whole. It is that idea of PC as a good thing I take exception to and argue against. Where is the line between PC and criticism? Censorship. Did I say nick was a victim? No, I did not. He was not censored, he was criticized. I said PC speech is stupid once control was introduced and why it is stupid which – in a nutshell – is it’s antithetical to free speech. One contention is not linked directly to the other. nick is a victim of his own poor joke writing skills more than anything else. But the subjects are related.

    1. Gene,

      Consistently, we’ve seen JT run stories of thought police trying to limit free speech and consistently you and I have opposed that. No one here in their remarks tried to censor Nick and that is why I deem it a false equivalency. A problem that I’ve noticed when you’ve been around here as long as you and I, is my assumption that everyone understands where I am on an issue. It ain’t necessarily so I’ve found. I generally like Nick, while disagreeing with him on much, but he does annoy me when he intentionally provokes and when he does I’ll call him out on it. Nick plays a more sophisticated version of “let’s rile up dem libruls”.

  15. Bron, The other three groups would hire the dago to kick your ass. The Chinaman would pay a fair price, The Jew would haggle for days to get the best price, and the Pollack would hire the dago to kick his ass.

  16. Mike, I am not a victim of ANYTHING. Why do people have to look upon this as crime and victim?? I don’t like it when I’m called “douche” “monkey and organ grinder”, “STFU”, etc. I don’t seek compensation or sympathy. I merely point out I don’t use those terms towards others here, and I think it’s chickenshit to say something that I’m quite certain wouldn’t be said to me in person. I never write or say anything that I would not say to a person’s face. It’s a good rule to live by. You have a right to say whatever you want and I have a right to tell you to go shit in your hat. You can complain about what I said and I can give it back. All that goes vice versa also.

  18. I love it when people have to use qualifiers when they agree w/ me. And David Blauw hit on the key point. If you find those words offensive, DON’T USE THEM. However, you have no right to try and STOP me from using them. SWM, isn’t that the good argument vis a vis abortion? If you don’t believe it’s right then don’t have one, but don’t try and stop me from having one.

    And, I was wrong w/ my Chinese joke, it’s the Japs and Gooks that are the shorter people, they all look alike. That’s tongue in cheek pc police. When a good boxer sees a cut above the eye of their opponent, they keep hammering @ it.

    Blouise, Many people don’t realize this but my favorite pol of late, Russ Feingold, is not much taller than Kucinich. However, Feingold has not seen UFO’s.

    1. “However, you have no right to try and STOP me from using them.”

      Nick,

      Seriously, whose stopping you? you’ve certainly made comment after comment using them. You really can’t differentiate between criticism and censorship?

  19. Bringing in a First amendment argument here is launching a false equivalency. The reason being that I and others who called Nick out on his weak attempts at humor were exercising our First Amendments rights.
    There was nothing in what I, or they, wrote that implied he should be censored here, or any place else, so please enlighten me on how his right to boorishness has been abridged and/or trampled? I personally dislike that kind of humor and have always found it offensive and in poor taste. I would never censor either Rickles, or Dice Clay, but I wouldn’t pay to see them either. Nick is a victim of……….what?

Comments are closed.