Suggested Answers to the Third Short Quiz – Preface Through Chapter 8

[johnkarls]

.

It is respectfully suggested that you make a list of your own questions that are provoked by “On Xi Jinping” – since all of us are unique and your questions are worth discussing also!!!


Question 1

In the preface (p. xiv), does Kevin Rudd say that “cheaters” need only read Chapters 1,3,4, 14, 15 & 16?

Answer 1

Yes.

Question 2

Also in the preface (p. xvi), does Rudd summarize the thesis of “On Zi Jinping” as Zi has taken --

(A) Chinese politics to the Leninist left,

(B) Chinese economics to the Marxist left, and

(C) Chinese foreign policy to the nationalist right?

Answer 2

Yes.

Question 3

While worshipping AI, does Rudd attempt to define it??? What is AI, really??? Does Rudd seem to know or did he appear to toss the term, without any comprehension, into his Oxford-PhD-thesis on which “On Xi Jinping” is based in order to get “full marks”???

Answer 3

What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!

Question 4

Does Rudd say AI is merely ONE of FIVE “major global change drivers”?

Answer 4

Yes.

Question 5

Despite claiming to examine “The Impact of the Classical Tradition on Contemporary Chinese Worldviews,” does Rudd fail to even mention Buddhism???

Answer 5

Yes.

Question 6

If you read Rudd, would you even know that Buddhism was introduced into China during the Han Dynasty (296 B.C. - 220 A.D.) and that it spread across China DUE TO IMPERIAL PATRONAGE during the Tang Dynasty (618 A.D. – 907 A.D.)??? BTW, how do these beginnings compare with the invention of Islam by the Prophet Muhammad (circa 570 A.D. - 632 A.D.)?

Answer 6

Re Rudd even mentioning Buddhism - absolutely not!!!

Re comparison to era in which Islam was invented by the Prophet Muhammad - What do you think???

Question 7

Even though the Chinese Communists have succeeded in effectively eradicating religion (except, perhaps, in the secular sense), isn’t it worth a mention that China had for centuries the world’s largest Buddhist population and that its effective eradication resulted in Buddhism being the only one of the world’s four major religions (i.e., more than a billion adherents – Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism) to plummet to approximately 500 million adherents?

Answer 7

What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!

Question 8

After all, wouldn’t a worthy topic for investigation by Rudd and his Oxford U friends be whether Chinese Communism in its various forms 1949 - 2025 is/was similar to a religion?

Answer 8

What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!

Question 9

BTW, does Henry Kissinger’s (aka Richard Nixon’s) historic 1972 “Opening to China” even rate a mention anywhere in “On Xi Jinping”??? And how Chairman Mao “rolled” Kissinger/Nixon into saying Taiwan was Chinese territory IN ORDER TO LET AMERICA PROTECT CHINA FROM AN IMMINENT RUSSIAN INVASION??? After all, wasn’t Xi Jinping nearly 20 years old when Nixon visited??? And wouldn’t Xi have been aware of Russia’s impending invasion??? Or was the media muzzled, at least in this regard???

Answer 9

What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!

Question 10

After all, despite a failure to mention the Kissinger/Nixon concession that Taiwan was Chinese territory, doesn’t Rudd claim one of his book’s chief virtues is its explanation of Chinese foreign policy??? And what is more central, at least as a threshold issue, than Taiwan???

Answer 10

Re a “chief virtue” - absolutely!!!

Re “more central” - What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!

Question 11

Is Rudd correct to emphasize Chairman Mao’s worship of “struggling”???

Answer 11

IMHO yes.

Question 12

After all, didn’t Charman Mao rule China since the Nationalists departed for Taiwan in 1949 until 1976? And didn’t Chairman Mao worship “struggle” as a way of focusing his followers during the Japanese occupation in World War II and the Chinese Civil War with the Nationalists until their departure for Taiwan in 1949, causing him to launch --

(A) his “Great Leap Forward” (1958-1962) which killed an estimated 15-55 million Chinese with the consensus at 30 million,

(B) his “Cultural Revolution” (1966-1976) which killed millions of Chinese, and

(C) his aborted Russian invasion (circa 1972) which he only reluctantly gave up in order to permit Nixon/Kissinger to protect China IN EXCHANGE FOR THEIR CONCESSION THAT TAIWAN IS PART OF CHINA.

Answer 12

Yes.

Question 13

Did Rudd properly report that upon Chairman Mao’s death, the Chinese “Communist” Central Committee became overnight the world’s largest “billionaire’s club” as its members dealt out to each other all of the government-owned companies which were promptly taken public in the West???

Answer 13

No.

How I was aware of this is explained in 6/3/2011 Short Quiz Answer 11 –

“…..when Mao died, the members of the Central Committee decided to become billionaires overnight!!! Like a major-sport draft of college players in the U.S., the members of the PRC Central Committee took turns choosing which state-owned Chinese company to appropriate personally free of charge!!! These companies were then all taken public in London and New York by Louis Kang.

“[The remainder of this answer is offered for the sole reason of providing credibility - please skip to Q&A-12 if you're willing to credit the previous paragraph.]

“During this period, Louis Kang and I were close friends because he is also an opera fanatic and we were always bumping into each other at opera performances around the world (we never had any professional dealings).

“Born in Hong Kong, Louis "read law" at Oxbridge (in Britain, law is an undergraduate major rather than a professional school requiring a bachelor degree for admission) and became a partner in Clifford Chance and Jones Day though I don't recall in which order. Obviously, he switched firms in order to maximize his cut of the fees he collected from the PRC Central Committee members. [Large international law firms resemble hotels because they follow the famous Mao saying that "power comes from the gun barrels of CLIENTS!!!" so if your clients will follow you, there are always plenty of "hotels" bidding for your business.]

“When all of the Chinese companies had been taken public, Louis became a venture capitalist specializing in raising funds in the West for Chinese start-ups. At that point, I severed relations with Louis.

“The reason relates to a point made in FAQ-2 attached to the 5/18/2011 letter to recently-elected U.S. Senator Christopher Coons of Delaware which is posted on www.ReadingLiberally-SaltLake.org in the third category - "Possible Topic for Fall 2011." FAQ-2 was explaining why I didn't just ask one of my super-wealthy friends for 8 figures for counsel in the lawsuits against the 15 large international financial institutions that will probably be coming to a close this Fall - although any of my super-wealthy friends could have provided 8 figures from "pocket change," you NEVER ask a super-wealthy person for a charitable contribution - but only suggest appropriate charitable OPPORTUNITIES and only at appropriate times. Unfortunately, I had introduced Louis to some of my super-wealthy friends when he was taking public the Chinese companies. And when he converted to venture capitalism, he began soliciting my super-wealthy friends OVER MY DEAD BODY for investments!!! Obviously, I had to disown him immediately!!!”

***********End of 6/3/2011 Short Quiz Answer 11**********

In order to avoid an avalanche of inquiries, an explanation of how to handle super-wealthy friends is offered (though much of it is available elsewhere on this website).

First, virtually all of them were widows (women live longer than men, especially those who have led high-pressure lives) and felt they had been a slave to a tyrant and now the tyrant is dead, so they will indulge their own loves (for the fine and performing arts). And can't believe that a male is trying to help females by tossing bouquets to sopranos and ballerinas - now more than 3,500. So they want to meet you to find out what makes you tick. And they want to be your friend and they compete with each other for your attention.

For example, Lillian Rothschild Berkman (1922-2001) outlived two husbands, the first of whom was the head of the famous worldwide Rothschild family (as a result of which I wear his cuff links in honor of her (may she RIP)). Lillian volunteered to chair the board of my "I Have A Dream"® Foundation of Stamford CT which provided for 200 public-housing-project children, tutors and mentors from third grade through high school graduation with a guarantee of college tuition. And at my invitation as the volunteer treasurer of the National "I Have A Dream"® Foundation to join the board of IHAD-National that oversaw 178 IHAD programs in 51 American cities.

[The IHAD programs of the 1980's and 1990's typically transformed SINGLE-DIGIT high-school graduation rates for the classes just behind and ahead of the "Dreamer" class to more than 90% -- which is NOT surprising when you realize that IHAD tutors and mentors became de facto surrogate parents.]

HOWEVER, unless your super-wealthy friends think of something themselves, you only suggest appropriate giving opportunities at appropriate times. For example, Widow X' is morose because her favorite grandchild was killed in a motorcycle accident. So you commiserate with your friend and casually mention that you remember that the grandchild went to College Y which happens to need a new chemistry building and would be delighted to put the grandchild's name over the door. Widow X is delighted. And can't help telling all her friends what a good friend you were in helping her to overcome her misery.

ACCORDINGLY, you NEVER, NEVER ask for anything for yourself!!! (Lillian Rothschild Berkman thought of the IHAD positions all on her own because she knew how much they meant to me.)

Why???

If you ask for something for yourself, you have reduced your status from "friend" to "supplicant."

That was why I had to disown Louis Kang immediately!!!

After all, it's one thing for your super-wealthy friends to be aware that one of your friends is busy taking PRC companies public in London and New York.

And quite another for them to be importuned by him for investments in start-ups!!!

Question 14

And did Rudd properly report that Russian Communism and Chinese Communism became radically different because the Chinese were still primarily agrarian and their “capitalist reform” was to permit farmers to retain 50% of what they grew (which was wildly popular), whereas the Russians were more advanced industrially and their “capitalist reform” was to let go bankrupt any government enterprise that didn’t turn a profit (which threatened much of the populace with the loss of employment)???

Answer 14

No.

Question 15

Have Rudd and his Oxford U associates never read in the 41 years since it was published, James Michener’s “Poland” which chronicles how, following the Russian-Communist revolution, Western-European Capitals including Paris and London despaired that the “Red Army” which was growing like a snowball rolling downhill as the proletariat rose to join its ranks, could be prevented from “rolling to the Atlantic” including occupying the U.K., but the Polish Army whose rank and file were almost solely Polish peasants, defeated the “Red Army” in the pivotal “Polish-Soviet War” (2/14/1920 – 3/19/1921) because the Polish peasants decided they would prefer to be ruled by their Polish masters rather than the Russian proletariat???

Answer 15

Apparently not.

Question 16

If Rudd and his Oxford U associates had acquainted themselves with the Polish-Soviet War of 1920-1921, why would they have been so surprised on p. 62 of “On Xi Jinping” when commenting on Russian/Chinese relations that nationalism can “trump” ideology???

Answer 16

What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!

Question 17

Is “On Xi Jinping” sloppy by suddenly on p. 64 referring to someone called “Levine” without even giving a first name, much less any additional info???

Answer 17

IMHO absolutely!!!

Question 18

Is evidence of additional sloppiness that “Levine” (still sans first name) and his views continue to be mentioned AND DISCUSSED AT LENGTH on p. 65 even though Rudd’s index claims “Levine” is only mentioned ANYWHERE IN THE BOOK on p. 64???

Answer 18

IMHO absolutely!!!

Question 19

Is “Levine” Stephen Levine whose brief bio on the U. of Montana website says (https://www.umt.edu/mansfield/about/man ... hp?ID=1441) --

• Senior Fellow, Chinese History and Politics, and U.S.-China Relations
• Steven I. Levine writes and lectures on Chinese history and politics and U.S.-China relations. During a forty-year teaching career, he taught, inter alia, at American University, Columbia University, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill as well as the University of Montana. He has written, co-authored, edited, and translated (from Chinese and Russian) some dozen books in his fields of interest as well as published scores of journal articles, book chapters, and review essays.*
• B.A. Brandeis University 1962; Ph.D. Harvard University 1972
• Languages: Chinese (Mandarin), Russian
[* but apparently no books.]

Answer 19

Yes.

Question 20

Does Rudd at least mention that the Sino-Soviet split (p. 66) “erupted in full public view…in 1960”?

Answer 20

Yes.

Question 21

Has our organization often marveled that our American intelligence services reported, BEGINNING IN 1959, that the USSR and the CCP were at each other’s throats AND GAVE A REASON – viz., that

(A) The USSR had viewed Russian Turkestan as the place to locate all of its nuclear tests and, for the sake of efficiency, all of their nuclear laboratories, nuclear-weapons-construction facilities, etc., BECAUSE THE USSR DID NOT CARE ABOUT THE SAFETY OF ITS TURKISH/ISLAMIC POPULATION (much like Nevada for the U.S. and Pacific atolls for the French and, wouldn’t you know it, Australia for the Brits);

(B) Ditto for China and Chinese Turkestan (aka Sinkiang Province);

(C) By 1959 per American intelligence, both China and the USSR were trying to UNITE THE TWO TURKESTANS under rival popular leaders – which, if successful, would render the other country a NON-NUCLEAR POWER OVRNIGHT.

(D) BTW, this meant that for any American decision-maker who read the 1959-et seq. intelligence, THERE WAS NO NEED TO FIGHT THE VIETNAM WAR – and it wasn’t until Henry Kissinger read and believed in the Sino-Soviet split, that he quickly brought the Vietnam War to a close.

Answer 21

(A) Yes.
(B) Yes.
(C) Yes.
(D) Yes.

Question 22

Does Rudd dismiss the Sino-Soviet split as mere nationalism WITHOUT MENTIONING THE NUCLEAR ISSUE???!!!

Answer 22

Yes.

Question 23

MEGA-QUESTION – Does Rudd seem to believe that each Chinese leader’s political/economic/foreign philosophy drove his policy decisions, RATHER THAN merely providing excuses for what he wanted to do??? And were probably adopted ex post facto???

Answer 23

What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!

Question 24

Though vis-à-vis the “ex post facto” comment in Q-24, wasn’t it also true that for some Chinese leaders, their views were “before the fact” akin to a political platform on which they vied to lead the country??? Though aren’t such philosophers hard to find because, like in other countries, their so-called principles have “to take a back seat” to pragmatism and their thirst for power???

Answer 24

What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!

Question 25

In this regard, does Chapter 4 (“Changes to China’s Ideological Worldview Under Xi Jinping (2012-2017)”) deal with five addresses that he made 2013-2017 – AFTER BECOMING General Secretary (i.e., leader) of the Communist Party and Chairman of the Central Military Commission, both in 2012, and President of China beginning in 2013???

Answer 25

Yes.

Question 26

Why doesn’t Rudd cite any Xi writings before he came to power??? Does Rudd’s failure mean there weren’t any – that Xi was “just keeping his head down” until he felt comfortable opening his mouth???

Answer 26

What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!

Question 27

Did Xi Jinping ruthlessly eliminate power rivals such as Bo Xilai who was removed from his posts in 2012 and then convicted of bribery and embezzlement??? Does this smack of Chinese “Lawfare”???

Answer 27

Yes and Yes.

Question 28

Is it coincidental that Bo Xilai was being persecuted and prosecuted in 2012 just when Xi Jinping was becoming General Secretary (i.e., leader) of the Communist Party and Chairman of the Central Military Commission, both in 2012, and the following year President of China beginning in 2013???

Answer 28

What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!

Question 29

Did Xi Jinping even ruthlessly eliminate in 2022 his predecessor in those three posts – Hu Jintao – who had served in each of those three posts for 10 years???

Answer 29

Please read on Q&A-30 and Q&A-31.

Question 30

Can anyone forget the video clip from the 20th Party Congress in 2022 just before the Congress was to elect or re-elect someone to those three posts for the next 10 years –

• Showing Xi’s predecessor, Hu Jintao, seated immediately to Xi’s right and, on the other side of Hu Jintao, a Xi rival who was widely expected to be elected to succeed Xi.
• Showing Hu Jintao being pulled from his seat and escorted out of the hall by two men who were obviously Chinese police.
• Hu Jintao gesturing his protest to Xi Jinping and then, as he was being dragged away from Xi and out of the hall, placing his hand on Xi’s rival whom everyone expected to be voted as Xi’s successor as if to dramatize Hu’s blessing on the rival.
(NB: Needless to say, the Party Congress delegates were so stunned and cowed by these theatrics that Xi was overwhelmingly re-elected.]

Answer 30

If you have seen it, do you think you can ever forget it???

Question 31

Are video clips of that event still available via YouTube from at least 5 sources – The UK Guardian, CNN, Reuters, TaiwanPlus News, and India’s WION News?

Answer 31

Absolutely!!!

Question 32

Now back to Xi for 2022-2032, what does it matter to the world whether he has taken Chinese politics to the Leninist left???

Answer 32

What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!

Question 33

And re the second of Rudd’s three themes about Xi taking Chinese economics to the Marxist left – what does this matter to the world???

Answer 33

What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!

Question 34

Shouldn’t the world’s focus be on the third theme – Xi taking Chinese foreign policy to the nationalist right???

Answer 34

What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!

Question 35

And even more importantly, shouldn’t the world be focused on China’s “gunboat-diplomacy military” which is superior to the U.S. in many respects – even if America aspired to be “The Policeman of the World”???

Answer 35

What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!

Question 36

Focused certainly, for example, on the size of its Navy (which is what projects force or “gunboat diplomacy”) and its navy-ship-building capacity which is many times larger than America’s???

Answer 36

What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!

Question 37

Will America be saved from Chinese domination by the invention of a new super-weapon, similarly to the way nuclear weapons brought a sudden end to World War II in the Pacific against Imperial Japan???

Answer 37

Do you still believe in “fairy tales’ coming true???