Today's topic summary

Group: the-free-thinkers-email@googlegroups.com

  - Wall Street bankers are setting up Trump, Herbert Hoover style, for a 1929 
depression [2 Updates]
  - Why do the Chinese view Mao Zedong in such a positive light? [1 Update]

Topic: Wall Street bankers are setting up Trump, Herbert Hoover style, for a 
1929 depression
Url: http://groups.google.com/group/the-free-thinkers-email/t/d157708d20717878

---------- 1 of 2 ----------
From: Evan Jones <evanj.ba...@gmail.com>
Date: Dec 01 11:12PM +0700
Url: http://groups.google.com/group/the-free-thinkers-email/msg/7bf6b18013ebf

NY Times:
”Janet L. Yellen, in testimony to the Joint Economic Committee last
week, said that an interest rate increase “could well become
appropriate relatively soon.”

---------- 2 of 2 ----------
From: Andre de Zeeuw <genesisba...@gmail.com>
Date: Dec 02 09:26AM +0700
Url: http://groups.google.com/group/the-free-thinkers-email/msg/7e0f93b7f52c6

That would me treason .....

BELOW so well written......

Opinions: *Democrats' disarray is sweet justice*
Author: Paul Jenkins

(photo cation) Supporters of Democratic U.S. presidential nominee 
Hillary Clinton watch state by state returns at her election night rally 
in New York, U.S., November 8, 2016.

While the incessant caterwauling builds to a crescendo over 
President-elect Donald Trump's choices for this job or that, while the 
media cries he is ignoring them; while the left tumbles kicking and 
screaming through Dante's nine circles of hell, a trip it booked all by 
itself, it is hard not to chuckle.

If ever there were a political party in a cataclysmic disarray of its 
own making, it must be the Democrats. The smoking, twisted wreckage of 
the Nov. 8 election can be seen from the International Space Station. A 
lousy candidate. A lousy campaign. A lousy message. A lousy legacy 
inherited from Barack Obama. More than $1 billion spent – and utter 
disaster for the left.

In critical states, states where jobs and economic worries were 
paramount, the American people said enough is enough; time for change. 
They chose Trump, but, if you know anything about the left, you know it 
never quits because it cannot fathom itself wrong.

In their continuing paroxysm over Hillary Clinton's Electoral College 
whuppin' — and it must have been all the sweeter for Trump et al., when 
she snagged the popular vote — our shell-shocked friends on the left and 
in the media have stooped to slinging epithets such as "white 
nationalist" and "racist,' and "alt-right" to smear Trump and picks for 
his administration. Some are "dangerous," they say. And, they cluck, 
white supremacists support Trump, as if some 60 million others do not count.

Clutching at straws, there are even calls from the usual suspects to 
dismantle the Constitution's Electoral College — it's old, they say, and 
did not give us what we wanted — along with fevered online petitions 
urging state electors pledged to Trump to switch sides when they cast 
their ballots for president Dec. 19. "He's not my president," the 
Clintonistas say, as if it were a prayer.

The surprise for the left must have been like being zapped by a Taser. 
Clinton was supposed to win. The news media said so; the polls said so. 
Trump could not possibly have won; his supporters are a basket of 
uneducated, homophobic deplorables; snaggle-tooth, stupid, white 
hillbillies with no clue, the left says. Oh, and they are gun-totin', 
Bible-clutching bigots, too. Just ask Starbucks. Or cast members of 
"Hamilton," who presume to lecture more often than vote. Or college 
students being handed teddy bears and cocoa to cope with the election's 

Those of the left cannot conceive of ordinary working stiffs finally 
growing weary of their condescending snobbery, their self-righteous 
multiculturism, political correctness and calls for diversity — symbols 
of the new intolerance. They cannot understand people being tired of 
carrying the load and being blamed for the nation's ills, or worse, 
being ignored. They are fed up with being scapegoated, promised one 
thing, handed another; frustrated about the economy, "Obamacare" and 
their shrinking paychecks. They feel isolated and fear for their 
children's futures.

And they voted.

The beauty of the past few weeks is that the left — blind to its own 
galling hypocrisy — is solely responsible for its current political 
predicament and its being cast to the backside of Hades.

President Barack Obama set the tone early. Three short days after his 
first inauguration, he and his top economic advisers met with 
congressional bigwigs from both sides of the aisle in the then-newly 
minted 111th Congress where Democrats held sway. The topic was the $830 
billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 then sailing 
through Congress.

A petulant, newly victorious Obama famously dismissed House Republican 
Whip Eric Cantor, who had deigned to offer a few modest proposals, by 
saying: "Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, I won."

So much for measured, reasonable discourse. I won; drop dead. That best 
describes the tenor of Obama's administration from Day One, and nowhere 
more evident than in "Obamacare." We are going to do what we want; you 
cannot stop us. We have the numbers. Ignore, exclude and alienate became 
watchwords for his administration — and torpedoes for Clinton's campaign.

Add to that, this: Despite warnings, Senate Democrats, angry at GOP 
filibusters targeting Obama nominees, in 2013 adopted the so-called 
"nuclear option," a Senate rule reducing from 60 to 51 votes the 
threshold needed to overcome filibusters of presidential nominations.

Hoisted by their own petards, Democrats, thankfully a minority nowadays, 
may find themselves unable to derail Trump's more controversial 
nominations. They may get a big dose of their own medicine. For Obama's 
arrogance and their penchant to rule rather than govern, they have it 

Trump, after all, won the election and elections — as one of our betters 
tells us — do have consequences. Numbers matter. What goes around, does, 
in fact, come around.

Paul Jenkins is editor of the AnchorageDailyPlanet.com, a division of 
Porcaro Communications.

On 01-Dec-16 23:12, Evan Jones wrote:

Topic: Why do the Chinese view Mao Zedong in such a positive light?
Url: http://groups.google.com/group/the-free-thinkers-email/t/f4885bd501741c5e

---------- 1 of 1 ----------
From: Evan Jones <evanj.ba...@gmail.com>
Date: Dec 01 06:51PM +0700
Url: http://groups.google.com/group/the-free-thinkers-email/msg/7b1308564c2f1

Thanks Wei Ling.  Good article.

Our knowledge of Mao comes from our own self-interested media's
portrayals.  Mao cleaned up China similar to how Putin is cleaning up
Russia. Mao must be demonized because his policies damaged many lucrative

Moti Nissani's take on Mao :
" The Chinese understand history much better than Westerners. They will
never forget their century of humiliation, 1840-1949, when the UK and the
US engaged in what is called, ‘the longest running and largest global
criminal enterprise in world history’ – enslaving the Chinese people with
opium. They, along with the European colonial powers, then proceeded to
cart off the nation’s silver bullion and rob it of its agricultural,
mineral, forest and human resources.”


> Robin Daverman, World traveler
> Written Mar 23

> Like Jimmy Liu said, the Chinese view Mao in a more realistic light. Both
the good and the bad. There are plenty of the bad things about Mao that are
reported here. I'll tell you a little bit of the good things.

> Before Mao, a lot of countries took a bite out of China: Russia took
Mongolia and a piece of Xinjiang; Japan took the northern 3 provinces
(Manchuria); UK took Hong Kong; Portugal took Macau; France and UK took a
piece of Shanghai; Germany took the Tsingtao province; The US was "Johnny
came lately" and persuaded all other great powers to share the trading
rights with her. After Mao, there was no more foreign occupation.

> When Mao came to power after the civil war, the country was filled with
millions of bandits, like Afghanistan, Iraq, and Somalia today. Within two
years, all bandits were cleared out. If you think about how long the NATO
has been in Afghanistan, and China had 30 times more population, vastly
more space, and even more challenging geography, this is no small feat.

> When Mao came to power, there were 50 million drug addicts in China, the
aftermath of the Opium Wars

> wikipedia.org

>  . Within 3 years everybody was squeaky clean. Zero drug addiction. If
you think a little bit of how the "War on Drugs" and the Prohibition went
in the US, this result is nothing short of amazing.

> When Mao came to power, women's social position was so low that it was
commonplace for a 13-year old girl to be sold to someone as his third
concubine for $100. Mao abolished concubinage and dictated that women were
equal to men. He forced all the young girls to go to school and be educated
as well as boys. Today, China has more women millionaires than anywhere
else in the whole world.

> When Mao came to power, 80% of the Chinese were illiterate. The
definition of literacy was the ability to write your own name. The common
form of identification in China was to dip one's finger in the red ink and
make a thumb print, because the vast majority of the people didn't know how
to write their names. The CCP set up night schools and made everyone under
40 to go there after work to learn how to read and write, and within a
decade, the tide of illiteracy in cities and towns receded. Today China is
96% literate, with literacy defined at much higher level than in 1949, as
the ability to read and write something like 3000 Chinese characters.
Basically 5th grade level. List of countries by literacy rate

> When Mao came to power, the average life expectancy in China was 35
years. Mao trained a bunch of poor peasants on the basic healthcare and
immunization to serve their own villages, and the average life expectancy
immediately started to jump. The life expectancy in China went from 35 to
73 years today.

> Without peace and security, without education and healthcare, without
freeing women to be the equal of men, China would not have been able to
grow economically in such a fashion. And China, under Mao, accomplished all
this pretty much on her own, considering that China was under the most
strict economic embargo from the 50's to the 70's. U.S. Ends Ban on China

> Even for the big mistake Mao made during the Great Leap Forward, if you
look at it through the historic lenses of China, you will see that China,
pre-Mao, had famine on a yearly bases. The US ambassador to China at that
time, John Leighton Stuart, reported that every year, 3 - 7 million people
in China died of famine. Dr. Walter Mallory, the Head of International
Famine Relief at that time, wrote a book entitled China: Land of Famine, by
Walter H. Mallory, . American kids growing up at that time were told to
clear the food on their plates because "there are starving children in

> Sure Mao did a lot of harm, but the good kind of shit he could pull, and
China could do all on her own, you can't. Even today. Even with a tiny
little country with only 20 million people, having top 20 most developed &
rich countries pouring money and assistance into it (like Afghanistan) for
20 years, instead of 1 billion people under complete embargo for 20 years
from the West, you can't. Not even close. If you want to try, go do it in
Somalia, in Afghanistan, in South Sudan, in Haiti, with all these places
already vastly better than where China was before Mao. Talk is cheap. Show
us what you can do!

You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. 
You can change your settings on the group membership page: 
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email 
to the-free-thinkers-email+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

Reply via email to