The historical/methodological perspective is essential to comprehend the world, do not respond to an issue instantly.

英文拷到 G / D 找中文翻譯

The historical/methodological perspective is essential to comprehend the world, do not respond to an issue instantly.

On September 3rd, I was honored to present the article “On the Expansion Strategy of the CCP Empire – from the U.S. House Speaker Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan” for the Democratic Defense and National Security Seminar, sponsored by the Taiwan Association of University Professors (TAUP).  

In a one-month-long writing period, the author realized that although the situation was tense, the related parties poured all their energy into preventing the escalation into a real crisis. Beijing’s military drill around Taiwan immediately after the departure of Speaker Pelosi impacts the neighboring countries besides Taiwan.

However, the comments of a panelist needed to discuss further. 

He pointed out: “It is worthless to prove something we already know, such as 2+3=5," "The cost-performance ratio of your article seems too low.”  

The panelist might be right, in the afternoon of September 3rd. But, some of the author's viewpoints, which have been written down in the article, have soon become common sense and become outdated within days. No matter how original the perspectives were when the author wrote them down during the one-month-long writing period, the author can not defend himself before the seminar, which takes place weeks later. 

That's unfair.  

The article did not end with the visit. The author continued to develop how the military drill impacts the neighboring countries, the sea lanes, and the expansion scheme of the CCP empire. 

The author gathered and marked the related data of the so-called One-Belt-One-Road (OBOR) on the world map, and noticed that Beijing is far more ambitious than we imagined. Introducing the sharp power, Beijing intends to construct a global empire from the equator to the arctic.

The article did not conclude here. The question continues: how do we evaluate the so-called “Beijing Model” and choose where to stand?

The author utilized the evolution of the patterns of the historical empires and the colonial rules and found two things are for sure: neither the ancient Alexander Empire, the Roman Empire, nor the early modern colonial empire from Spain, Portugal, Netherland, Belgium, France, British to the U.S.:

1. The empires can not rule their huge territory by a single system. They have to rule decentralized and localized, which leaves room for diversified peoples and nations. The more progressive rule the empire is the more freedom, democracy, and human rights it allows the people to enjoy.

2. In the long-term human history, the diverse patterns and values competed to find the ones to suit the eras and the environments. The left ones are, of course, suitable. It is from the viewpoint of evolution or Darwinism.

Communism, which developed in the 19th century, is one of many plots to revise the disadvantages of Capitalism. The history goes on. Many more thinking developed later including Capitalism, democratic socialism, and some social welfare systems. 

The thinking of humankind never stops. It does neither stop in the Greek era nor terminates now. 

Sadly, Chinese intellectuals know Communism in the early 20th century without knowing any of the history and treat Communism as the ultimate stage of history as it depicts. 

The Chinese intellectuals see Communism as a religion than a branch of thinking. Some fundamentalists treasure it like a cult, which needs to create a utopia with violence if necessary.

Today, Communism falls way behind the era; but the followers are not aware of this fact.  

That is why no matter what the propaganda commits, we should not choose to stand aside from the Communist-party system. It is outdated. The Communist is not a way of thinking. Those who raise Communism are nothing more than greed seekers.

The author intends to let the readers see through the communists more clearly from the perspective of history. 

The article is neither “prove something already known,” nor “the cost performance ratio seems too low.” It is not a normative article, too.

Instead, the author tries to convince the readers to trust the civilization. The so-called Communism is outdated; it is against our civilization and will crash in the future.