亿邦国际控股公司董事长兼首席执行官胡东先生的信

亿邦国际控股公司董事长兼首席执行官胡东先

202134日星期四


胡东先您好!

你们公司做的特别大,特别广,特别新,需要超强和智慧和管理能力。

我叫唐炜臻, 是美国股市几十年的市场观察者和参与者,金融企业家,思想家,战略家,足智多谋,华人巴菲特国际金融领域的中国符号品牌打造者,一个金融工程师,一个为投资人谋利益,值得信任的财富创造者。


我重视的是自己的眼光,智慧和胆量和赚大钱的交易系统为投资人赚钱的人以成就大业。我有自己的专著 我的巴菲特财富之路书,有中英文版,网上和我自己有很多关于我的正反面文章,有很多我的视频和我有大量的股票交易记录, 

华为一样,我在金融方面非常成功,有自己的金融和司法理论和实践 ,具有极大的发展前景,遭西人嫉妒和迫害,被控欺诈,因为没有律师和辩护,我被非法定罪。我开始研究西方的法律和司法实践。

我有十多年的法庭经验,美国证券方面和各种司法的经验和法庭记录,我是公众关注的人物。 我希望为你们这样的美国上市公司出谋划策,为你们在北美市场发展和长治久安做贡献。


我有非常的危机和公关能力,有很多事实和案例说明。我从下面的雅虎文章关注到你们,很多投资人跟我一样,市场的知名度是无价之宝,可以转化为公司的巨大财富和资源



https://finance.yahoo.com/news/sos-limited-responds-misleading-short-130000831.html


文件下面附带我的书封面,网上有我的书。

懂北美的企业,市场方式,市场语言和美国证券的司法。我[i]市场语言,懂投资人,懂西方的证券法律法律,我有丰富的实践经验和知名度,我可以帮你们带来有大量的资金,比你们苦干,实干强百倍。 我可以为你们公司做出巨大贡献,一个人的工作顶几十,几百人的工作,让你们事半功倍

 

你们跟大多数中国在北美的上市公司一样缺乏像 赵长鹏和我一样的北美社会和市场沟通能,目前你们公司的市值值10个亿美元左右,我可以帮你们的公司市值提高10倍或者百倍。

 

赵长鹏1977年-),是一位加拿大华人企业家,币安创始人。20184月,这个平台每秒140万次的交易能力吸引了600万用户,使其成为全球最大的密码货币交易所。[1][2]之前还是Blockchain.info会员以及OKCoin首席技术官[3][4]

 

2013年,开始瞄准码货币,曾在Blockchain.info工作和担任OKCoin的首席技术官[3]2014年,卖掉了上海的房子,全仓投入比特2017年,离OKCoin,成立自己的公司币安并担任首席执行官。20177月,在首次代币发行中融1,500万美元[2]。在不到八个月的时间,币安已经成为全球最大的密码货币交易所[1][2]20182月,《福布斯杂志将他列为码货币首富[1][3][6]20185月,其身价超13.9亿美元[7]

 

谢谢你的时间!希望有合作的机会,成为你们的投资人关系和战略咨询特别顾问。

 

致敬!

唐炜臻

 

A Letter to The Chairman And Chief Executive President Of  SOS Limited Mr. Wang Yandai from The Chinese Warren Buffett

The Chinese Warren Buffett to the Chairman and Executive President of  SOS Limited

Letter to Mr. Wang Yandai

Thursday, March 4, 2021

Hello, Mr. Wang Yandai!

Your company is very large, cover very wide area  and very new business and requires superior wisdom and management capabilities.

My name is Tang Weizhen. I am a market observer and participant in the US stock market for decades, a financial entrepreneur, thinker, strategist, I am resourceful, “Chinese Buffett”, “Chinese symbol in the field of international finance,” brand builder, and a financial engineer. A trustworthy wealth creator for the benefit of investors.

What I value is most my vision, wisdom and courage  and a trading system that makes a lot of money for investors  in order to serve investors to achieve great cause. I have my own monograph, “My Path to Warren Buffett’s Wealth” “the Chinese Warren Buffett” in both Chinese and English. There are many positive and negative articles about me online, a lot of my videos  (www.youtube.com/c/weizhentang,  The Chinese Warren Buffet BNN Interview Part 1  https://youtu.be/yui0t87qybk via @YouTube) and I have a lot of stock trading records (Tang’s Sensational $1M Real Time US Index Futures and Forex Trading Dem… https://youtu.be/XzLCJp3ljKE via @YouTube) ,

Like Huawei, I am extremely  successful in finance. I have my own financial and judicial theory and practice. I have great development prospects. I was been jealous and persecuted by Canadian prosecutors and regulatory and wrongfully accused of fraud. Because I didn’t have a lawyer and legal representatives, I was illegally and unlawfully convicted so  I have to  study Western law and judicial practice and fight with the regulatory body and for justice.

I have more than ten years of court experience, have experience and court records in North American securities and did various judicial matters. I am a figure of public concern. I hope to make suggestions for Chinese U.S. listed companies like yours and contribute to your corporate development and long-term stability in the North American market.

I have a great crisis management skills and public relations skills  and I have many proves  and useful cases to demonstrate my ability.  I recently pay attention to your stock  from the following Yahoo article. Many investors are like me get to know you. The popularity of the market is invaluable which can be transformed into the company’s huge wealth and resources.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/sos-limited-responds-misleading-short-130000831.html

I understand North American companies, the market, the market language, and the judicial and legal language of North American securities. I understand market language, investors, and  North American securities laws and law firms. I have rich and practical experience and reputation. I can help your company bring a large and continuous capital from the market to you. It is better than just your hard work. My work worth hundred times than you can do and  make a great contribution to your company. The work of one person of mine can do the work of dozens or hundreds of people, which will make you more effective.

You, like most Chinese listed companies in North America, lack the North American social and market communication skills and Investors Relationship like Binance exchange CEO Mr. Zhao Changpeng and me. The current market value of your company is about 1 billion U.S. dollars. I could  help your company grow  market value by 10 times or a hundred times. What I need is a reward package  that shocks Wall Street like ELON MUSK

Sincerely yours

Weizhen Tang

Thursday, March 4, 2021

Hello, Mr. Wang Yandai!

Your company is very large, cover very wide area  and very new business and requires superior wisdom and management capabilities.

My name is Tang Weizhen. I am a market observer and participant in the US stock market for decades, a financial entrepreneur, thinker, strategist, I am resourceful, “Chinese Buffett”, “Chinese symbol in the field of international finance,” brand builder, and a financial engineer. A trustworthy wealth creator for the benefit of investors.

What I value is most my vision, wisdom and courage  and a trading system that makes a lot of money for investors  in order to serve investors to achieve great cause. I have my own monograph, “My Path to Warren Buffett’s Wealth” “the Chinese Warren Buffett” in both Chinese and English. There are many positive and negative articles about me online, a lot of my videos  (www.youtube.com/c/weizhentang,  The Chinese Warren Buffet BNN Interview Part 1  https://youtu.be/yui0t87qybk via @YouTube) and I have a lot of stock trading records (Tang’s Sensational $1M Real Time US Index Futures and Forex Trading Dem… https://youtu.be/XzLCJp3ljKE via @YouTube) ,

Like Huawei, I am extremely  successful in finance. I have my own financial and judicial theory and practice. I have great development prospects. I was been jealous and persecuted by Canadian prosecutors and regulatory and wrongfully accused of fraud. Because I didn’t have a lawyer and legal representatives, I was illegally and unlawfully convicted so  I have to  study Western law and judicial practice and fight with the regulatory body and for justice.

I have more than ten years of court experience, have experience and court records in North American securities and did various judicial matters. I am a figure of public concern. I hope to make suggestions for Chinese U.S. listed companies like yours and contribute to your corporate development and long-term stability in the North American market.

I have a great crisis management skills and public relations skills  and I have many proves  and useful cases to demonstrate my ability.  I recently pay attention to your stock  from the following Yahoo article. Many investors are like me get to know you. The popularity of the market is invaluable which can be transformed into the company’s huge wealth and resources.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/sos-limited-responds-misleading-short-130000831.html

I understand North American companies, the market, the market language, and the judicial and legal language of North American securities. I understand market language, investors, and  North American securities laws and law firms. I have rich and practical experience and reputation. I can help your company bring a large and continuous capital from the market to you. It is better than just your hard work. My work worth hundred times than you can do and  make a great contribution to your company. The work of one person of mine can do the work of dozens or hundreds of people, which will make you more effective.

You, like most Chinese listed companies in North America, lack the North American social and market communication skills and Investors Relationship like Binance exchange CEO Mr. Zhao Changpeng and me. The current market value of your company is about 1 billion U.S. dollars. I could  help your company grow  market value by 10 times or a hundred times. What I need is a reward package  that shocks Wall Street like ELON MUSK

Sincerely yours

Weizhen Tang

唐炜臻的系列Zoom 视频会议

  唐炜臻,荣获2008年中华十大财智人物最佳诚信奖,一位被媒体宣称的“华人巴菲特”,成功预测美国房地产经济危机, 给华人投资界带来了革命性的影响,是世界金融领域具有标志性的“中国符号”,也是海外华人中财智人物的典型代表。   唐炜臻不但对北美的金融,商业十分精通,而且对北美的司法,政治也有深入的了解,研究和实践 金融,几十年坚持不懈跟市场斗,莫把滚打,反诈骗,为投资人追求连续稳定回报,为投资人提出每周1% 的数量化的庄家 论理论和实践,对投资人和媒体公开演示操盘,史无前例,这种毅力与勇气,凭个人的声誉,人品,市场经验与技巧,3年融资6千万美元,在金融 海啸中能做到没有市场亏损,为投资人躲过一场世纪浩劫,管理资金灵活机动,投资人自由出入,无论亏损和赢利保持投资人的盈利水平和利益,主动为承担风险,你想想,这是什么思想,精神与境界,为什么会造成天大误会,被攻击的目标。 商业奇才: 加拿大华人春节联欢晚会震撼多伦多,财富峰会让人留恋不已,赞不绝口,地位是独占鳌头. 公益与慈善事业,一马当先,不顾自己和自己的生意上的安危,有救必应,一个毫不利己专门利人的人,愿意帮人的人,实属少见. 司法: 十多年的司法经验,大案重案在身,不卑不亢,临危不惧,以一对几十个大律师和法官,个人对强大的西方政府专政机器几年,近十年,  唐炜臻:试与权利机构一争高低   大家一起讨论和交流北美的投资经验和生财之道,如何才能从今天的市场赚到钱。 唐炜臻邀请大家通过视频讨论投资人和海外华人最关心的问题,财富与法制.   专题:  唐炜臻与投资人交流北美的投资经验和生财之道,如何才能从市场赚到钱,追求连续稳定回报,唐炜臻如何使投资人如何成为百万,千万,亿万富翁 话题包括: 目前美国的市场,如何应对,避免风险,得到连续稳定回报 北美的金融市场与庞氏骗局,拆东墙补西墙 唐炜臻每周1% 理论与实践的作用与意义,为什么公众和投资人误解与权利机关对唐炜臻的攻击与阻难 加拿大与西方法制的本质与对策,如何轻松应对司法,避免家庭悲剧 加拿大为什么说是犯罪天堂,唐炜臻真的犯罪了吗 海外华人如何发展壮大,北美的机会与挑战 唐炜臻如何使投资人如何成为百万,千万,亿万富翁,真的假的 唐炜臻如何集资金与人才于一体,成为北美华人金融中心     时间: 每个周末星期六和星期美加东部时间下午 4点   诚挚邀请你加入 唐炜臻的系列Zoom 视频会议 https://us04web.zoom.us/j/5520162796?pwd=NXV4eWYyNHR0aVhCMW1HZ2ZZcG03dz09   Meeting ID: 552 016 2796 Passcode: 4CGbRB   唐炜臻视频将在视频网站转播

”我的巴菲特财富之路“一书带您走向财富顶峰 (视频)

 

 

近一段时期以来,一个叫唐炜臻的中国人以其在北美金融领域闯荡的经历为蓝本,写了一本《我的巴菲特财富之路》的书,在海内外引起了强烈的反响。通过这本书,我们看到了一个和财富站在一起的人,他的理念、思维、创意和成就;更令人感奋的是唐先生并非金融科班出身,也没有金融学科的博士、硕士等很高的学历及学位,完全是靠领悟力自学成才、靠一步一个脚印苦心经营和历练起家,在不长的时间里取得了辉煌的业绩。他的成功带给我们很多的思考和探究,让我们重新审视自己所受到的教育以及我们自我的发展和出路。

唐先生常讲,一个人受教育的程度、读书的多少与致富并无多大关联;千百年来我们接受的传统教育是:“书中自有黄金屋,书中自有千钟粟,书中自有颜如玉”。而他的成功和作为对中国传统教育不啻是个挑战或是另一种商榷。早年毕业于中国大陆中南林学院的唐炜臻,因学业优秀而作为杰出毕业生留校,执教于林学系,任微生物课教师。1987年公派赴美国俄亥俄州立大学昆虫系和生物学系做访问学者,1990年赴加拿大滑铁卢大学生物学系攻读硕士学位,后被多伦多总医院录用,从事生物医学研究;1992年于滑铁卢大学生物学系毕业,获硕士学位。1993年又受聘于多伦多儿童医院,继续生物医学领域的研究,同年,开始接触金融系统中的互惠基金;并初步尝试投资互惠基金。1994年尝到互惠基金带来的甜头后开始进入股票方面的钻研,1996年,在金融领域摸索了一阵子以后,隧辞去多伦多儿童医院的研究工作,自主创业,创建了唐炜臻投资与信息咨询公司,从最初管理4000加元互惠基金开始了金融领域的新的职业生涯;可谓新的长征。从唐先生的人生履历中不难看出,他是一个不唯上、不唯书、只唯实,不断向自我挑战的人;他虽学者出身,具备一定的学术功底和理论思维能力,但并没宥于此,成为一个“躲进小楼成一统,管他冬夏与春秋”的学究式的人,而是向实践学习,不断探求新知,阿尔夫。托夫勒曾说:“未来社会的文盲,不再是那些不能阅读和书写的人,而是那些不会学习、不能进行知识更新的人。”唐炜臻是深谙此道的。他将书本知识与实际操作结合起来,理论联系实际,向生活取经,在人生的舞台上演绎着一个又一个奋斗与求索的故事,故事不多,却像一首歌。他身上有一种“国际悲歌歌一曲,狂飙为我从天落”的气概,凭着吃辣椒的湖南人特有的韧劲儿和不屈不挠的顽强意志,卧薪尝胆、苦练内功,在北美广袤的大地上演绎着创造财富的赞歌。
以我对唐先生的了解,他乃性情中人,颇有激情,普通话虽然很郊区但却衷于侃侃而谈地演说,他的话尽管感染力很强,但那浓厚的湖南乡音仍让湖南以外的人全神贯注方能听懂。还是看他的书吧,古人云:言为心声,书中自有他的一番用武天地。《我的巴菲特财富之路》一书是他思想的结晶、经验的总结、成果的积淀、智慧的闪光。在书的开篇题记当中,他语出惊人地写到:“世界上风险最大的地方是股市,风险最小的地方也是股市。投资是一种艺术,财富知识是最大的学问。财富是一种思维方式,真正的财富是伟大的思想与实践。”可谓标新立异、先声夺人。“。。。看到很多年轻有为的大陆人移民到加拿大以后,没有发展,看不到前途。他们在国内发展相对很好,有经验、有能力、有地位。但移民以后,因为社会制度不同,特别是思维方式的不同,要适应新的环境和制度,在新的环境下生存很不容易。一大批的人才眼看着就要浪费。很多人就没有打算在国外有什么作为,把希望寄托在下一代身上,很是可惜。”作者感同身受,饱含深情地说:“我看在眼里痛在心里,希望自己有办法帮助他们,它同时更让我看到了机会:能帮助他们将是我的最大成功和心愿。具有财富良知的唐炜臻,一语道破金融大师巴菲特的成功窍门儿:“巴菲特成功的主要手段是投资生意,靠思想和思维能力,自己亲自去看生意,买现成的生意,让能干的人去经营和管理。资本运作的关键是观念、生意与金融思维(抽象思维)能力。不精通生意不能做资本运作,不精通金融更不能做资本运作,只有两者都精通才行。”作者虽有一腔热血且语出不凡,但在实际操作中也并非一帆风顺,起步阶段遭遇了不少挫折和困境甚至举步为艰。好在他身上有一种把困难当饭吃的独特品格,使得自己善于化干戈为玉帛,不断总结失败的经验,为此,他还专门撰写了《大陆移民在北美如何发展》一文,率先发表在颇具影响力的中文网站“多伦多在线”上。传播自我、服务社会与人类的思想在唐氏身上出露端倪。他希望大家看到创造财富的过程和奇迹并参与其中。他十分青睐实践理性,自认为社会是一所永无止境的大学,“社会是考验和锻炼人的地方,学校和研究机构很专业,是学习的地方,却不是锻炼人的地方。”并将投资理解为“。。。一个心理过程,动态的,活生生的事情,而大多数人把它看成静态的,书本上的。从远处看华尔街,可以使人头脑清醒,审时度势。”

作者开宗明义旗帜鲜明地亮出自己的观点:“我们是为投资人投资,一直是,也永远是实行巴菲特的‘不赚钱不收费’的收费原则与办法。我们投资和操作是透明的,合伙人可以随时随地检查自己的投资。我们的投资对象是美国的500强指数和纳斯达克指数、欧元和加元。海外华人合伙人公司在加拿大登记注册、以后也会在香港和新加坡等地注册、开户,中国巴菲特合伙人加拿大公司也已经登记注册,合伙人公司都是一些有眼光,富有和有判断能力的人,投资人自己监管,为争取最大利益,公司避免和不受政府监管。机构投资资金大也可以在世界任何地区用自己的户头,我们负责管理。”同时负责任地强调:“根据北美的法律和投资基本常识,我们同时在此声明:投资是有风险的;我们并不保证任何投资人的投资和回报;投资人应该根据自己的判断和眼光做出明智的选择,或者寻求专业咨询以帮助自己选择。”作者意味深长地说:“通过在北美10多年的摸爬滚打,特别是北美的金融市场的磨练,我悟出了很多投资、财富和为人处世的道理,发现真正的成功是靠思想、观念、靠识人、用人,靠经验而不是技术。”对于自己崇拜和深受其影响的大师巴菲特,作者有其深刻的解读:“巴菲特投资和财富理念是一种思想和体系,不是方法和技术。。。。。。。他的股票投资是通过股市经常提供的机会(熊市),在最低的位置买生意,买好了基本上不卖出;长线投资,不同时期分散投资。”作者并没有假借一位大师级的名人来抬高自己故弄玄虚以此达到“挟天子而令诸侯”的目的;而是深刻领悟了巴菲特大师丰厚的金融思想和操作理念,极富创见地结合自身的实际经验加以分析、梳理、归纳、总结以此形成自己的一套金融价值观和运作范式并在此基础上推而广之,通过实践来验证自己的判断。

作者以为,巴菲特式的投资方式堪称世界顶级,“巴菲特投资成功的奥妙,首先是他对生意、对金融市场的认识和特殊的判断能力。。。。。。。巴菲特的投资理论:在最低价格时买进股票,然后就耐心等待。别指望做大生意,如果股票价格低廉,即使中等生意也能获得丰厚的利润。巴菲特的投资哲学首要之处是要记住股市大崩溃,不要亏损。 即要以稳健的策略投资,确保自己的资金不受损失,并且要永远记住这一点。”接着,作者又指出:“其次,让自己的资金以中等速度增长。巴菲特主要的投资目标都是一些具有中等增长潜力的企业,并且这些企业被认为可以持续增长。对此,投资者可能会大惑不解:进入高风险的股票市场,不找出大黑马、不追逐热点、不跟庄,真是生不如死。本来,股市之大,每一个投资者有权对自己的投资负责;但一旦投机形成风潮,甚至传媒也在推波助澜,可以想象一下大部分人的结局。”作者悟到:“巴菲特投资成功的另一个奥妙是巴菲特利用合伙人企业,把投资人的资金集中在一起,用巴菲特的经验和判断进行高效率、低风险和低成本的管理。但这一点我们很少人去做,而大多是每个人自己去做;但事实是,每件事都自己做风险极大。”他又进一步指出:“巴菲特合伙人公司使他的才能得到充分发挥。随着投资额的不断增加,投资可以有效地分散,风险得到了有效的控制,大家的投资成本(包括佣金)也成倍往下降。巴菲特利用合伙人制使投资成功的另一个重要优点是:与顾客利益一致,能排除各种干扰。”

当今世界,社会分工越来越细,每个人在自己的职业领域里都要务必成为专家才能差异化地生存,参与有序的竞争;唐炜臻早已看到世界的变化和需求,他呼吁世人:“把烦恼交给专家,让财富属于自己。”他多次讲到:“北美是一个高度发达的社会,靠个人的勤奋很难致富,致富只能靠智慧。创造财富最好的办法,是让时间为你创造财富,让别人为你工作,让钱为你工作。”“我们大陆移民的钱都来之不易,是血汗钱。但死守自己的钱也不是个办法,也行不通。用钱生钱才是致富之道。。。。。。”同时,他也是极力推崇人的因素和人的作为的:“在创造财富的过程中,人是至关重要的,具有很大的价值和创造力。”鼓励人们敢于成功,成为世界上最富有的人。为此,(1)必须具有悟性,会用市场,用人和资金。(2)必须精通金融市场的各种奥秘,树立正确的社会、人生、市场和价值观念。(3)有连续不断的、稳定的盈利方式(系统),像巴菲特一样不能有亏损,能帮助每一个信任自己的投资人。

来到北美社会打拼的人,几乎没有不渴望成功和财富的,这是正当的,也是正常的;针对大多数在致富路上困惑的人,作者一针见血地指出:“大多数人为了财富奋斗终生而不可得,原因是尽管他们在各种学校学习多年,但从来没有学习过金钱和财富的知识,不知道如何用钱和让别人为自己工作,不知道利用集体的力量、群体的优势。”他倡导:“人人需要商业意识、价值观念,人人需要崇尚企业和企业家精神。你想致富必须有风险意识和领导意识,要敢想敢干。”为了“众人拾柴火焰高”,他成立了“唐炜臻财富俱乐部”,供大家交流心得、积极投身火热的创富行动中。并激励会员学习在资本主义社会生存和发展必须的知识和技能:(1)学习北美生意和投资,了解财富创造和增长的秘密;(2)转变观念,培养正确的思维;(3)不是每个人都要做生意,不做生意还是需要学会做老板和老板思维方式;(4)北美是资本主义,用钱赚钱是人们经济来源的重要部分,学习用钱赚钱;(5)发现理想的人才以及合作伙伴;(6)学习别人的经验;(7)学习在北美如何与人合作;(8)学习让别人为你工作。

他十分重视团队的力量,不遗余力地呼吁:“凝聚产生力量,团结产生优势。个人创业、致富—–难。”针对日益严重的贫富差距,他在书中尖锐地指出:“富人越来越富,穷人越来越穷。其主要原因是穷人拒绝接受理财知识和很难寻找到致富的途径,而富人则在不断地寻找理财知识和致富的途径。穷人为政府和自己工作,富人是钱和社会为他工作。”通过自己多年来的观察,他以为:“世界上大多数人是穷的,从整体上来讲这是一时半刻都无法改变的事实。但是个人的穷是可以改变的。要想改变穷的状况,需要改变一个人的观念。而改变观念必须了解富人与穷人之间的区别。富人与穷人之间的不同之处,不是简单的钱和资产的悬殊,而是观念、思维方式和性格上的不同。穷人思想封闭,害怕风险,比较感性;富人思想开放,勇敢而理性。”
对唐先生的很多观点我有不同的看法并坚持保留自己的意见,但从根本上,我是欣赏他的;既然一个世界多种声音,那么,我可以不同意你的观点,但我誓死捍卫你说话的权利。这才是对人本质上的尊重。作者不是一个理论家,而是一个做手;这本书虽然缺乏完备的理论体系,但不乏理论锐气。正如徐滇庆教授在该书的序言中所阐述的:“。。。。。。如果以学术著作的标准来看,他的这本书还比较粗藻,还有许多地方没有从理论上给予总结提高。。。。。。但是,从在金融第一线的实践者角度给读者提供他特有的、实用的观点、见解和宝贵的经验,却是一般学术著作所难以比拟的。”作者的思维取向更注重实际操作,使得这本书的普世作用一目了然。
作为唐炜臻投资与信息咨询公司的董事长兼总裁,唐先生对投资有自己独到的见解,他认为“投资的关键是投资人的位置、眼光、心态以及大众的心理。”“赚钱的关键是‘信’和‘理’。问题是人们不会去想太容易的办法,总是要追求最难、最复杂的办法,以为这样才能显示一个人的能力和价值。一般的人通常会怀疑简单和容易的事。”作者研究财富的目的“就是研究每一个人,身边的人,熟悉的人,特别是成功的人,利用和被身边的人利用,跟身边的人、自己熟悉的人合作是最可靠的捷径,让你的智慧为你工作、致富。发现和利用别人的长处和需要,互相利用和取长补短,扬长避短,充分发挥和利用资源。”他提醒人们:“研究财富也要研究钱的道理、钱的规律,让钱为自己工作。很多人也想用钱为自己工作,因为方向、方式、方法不对,反而在让钱工作的时候,产生相反的效果,造成损失,让钱拖累,带来麻烦。”

作为职业金融工作者,作者清晰地意识到“随着时代的进步和分工进一步专业化,靠个人和自己致富,越来越困难;。。。。。。大家联合起来,共同致富才是上策。”并以无畏的勇气和胆识说到:“我愿意带头,勇于表现自己,不怕犯错误,也不怕别人骗;希望跟大家合作,跟更多的人合作,更不自私,愿意尽可能帮助别人成功。希望大家也像我一样勇于表现自己,特别是在我面前和其他生意人面前表现自己。”作者认为,“财富由两部分组成,一部分是钱,物理性的财产,或者实物,有形的(相当于人的躯体)。另一部分是财富的智慧,是无形的(相当于人的灵魂)。”在他看来,“很多中彩票的人,得到了大笔的钱,但往往很容易失去。原因是他们没有财富的知识和智慧。”而财富的智慧应体现在赚钱的方式上:“穷人的钱因为怕风险只能放在银行里,而富人的钱放在投资和保险公司的帐户上。穷人的钱在为政府和富人工作,富人是用自己的钱和穷人放在银行里的钱为自己工作。穷人不能责怪富人,穷和富是自己选择的。因为穷人自愿把钱放在银行里,而银行需要把钱借给会赚钱的富人去赚钱。”在论及穷和富的理由时,他入木三分地指出:“穷人有两种,一种是不理财,不投资;一种是什么事情都想自己知道和自己做。富人知道理财与投资是非常专业的行为,他们会主动寻找专业最强的人才,聘请高手帮他们理财投资,知道利用社会和社会分工的力量。”所以说,“穷则思变”,要求人们改变观念,向贫穷宣战,向财富进军。

这是一个财富话语的时代,拥有财富话语权的财富人物,作为社会财富和个人财富的创造主体,正深入而广泛地影响着社会经济和人们的生活。唐炜臻先生像千千万万普普通通从中国大陆到北美来的创业者一样,既不是名门出身,也没有耀眼的学历和学位,大多都是白手起家;但是他们发现了世人发现不了的商业机会,找到了别人找不到或很难挖掘的市场,做了我们可能做但由于种种原因而没有做的领域和市场;《我的巴菲特财富之路》始终荡漾着“要做财富的主人而不是奴隶”这样的激情,对此书,我更愿意做这样的理解:这是关于我们大家的财富故事和梦想。

《我的巴菲特财富之路》一书洋洋洒洒20万言,始终流淌着作者血浓于水的故国情节,身为中国人,一颗中国心;唐炜臻的目光始终没有离开自己的祖国和同胞。书的第三篇“海外华人生存与发展”中谈到了中国移民在加拿大的发展机会和问题,鼓励新移民要转变观念,重新塑造自己。告戒大家“自己想办法获得北美社会和工作经验。”认为“人的技能和劳动力在北美是商品。新移民有知识。技术和劳动力是潜力,相当于半成品或一个不成熟的产品。但是由于不了解所处的社会,没有经过北美市场的检验,还不是商品。。。。。。。获得北美经验的机会要自己想方设法,也是可以自己想办法解决的;例如做义工、志愿者。很多人不了解人才市场行情,不知道怎样给自己的熟练技术和劳动力定价,不知道怎么给自己的劳动和服务定价等,是缺乏价值观念的一个表现。不知道讲价钱,有了机会也会错过。”他进一步指出:“语言不是最主要发展障碍”,“要在北美获得经济上的自由,几乎都得靠做生意和投资。”“大陆移民大多数都非常缺乏投资理财意识和知识,很多人都不懂也不想搞懂,这是限制自己在北美发展的致命原因。”“北美竞争非常激烈,分工很细,每个人只能做自己最擅长的才会具有竞争力。”。。。。。。针对大陆移民在北美的发展,作者提出了自己的看法:“大陆移民在北美的发展,根据一个人对社会的了解和自己的能力,可分为3个阶段:第一是个人(个体)发展(也是集体发展的基础);第二是集体发展,与别人合作,善于跟人沟通,善于跟人合作;第三是社会发展,利用信誉、制度和资本。

这本书自始至终贯穿着作者的一腔热血和澎湃激情,敢为天下先的勇气和独特的思考方式使人们感受到唐炜臻先生的古道热肠和智慧的芬芳。

我为什么没有投资特斯拉股票,很多人跟我一样后悔不已, 吐血了

机会总是给有准备的头脑,有眼光和胆量的人。我当时没有注意,没有了解,直到他股票冲向天空,才注意到。 现在不投资我,等我成为千万,亿万和世界首富的时候,很多人也会后悔,我会骗人吗,怎么骗?有人说我投资人把他们的钱都亏到市场上去。 Why I did not invest in Tesla, Inc. an American electric vehicle and clean energy company based in Palo Alto, California. Tesla’s current products include electric cars, battery energy storage from home to grid scale, solar panels and solar roof tiles, and related products and services Most of People do not notice this stock until it skyrockets like me. If I knew Elon Musk I would have invest him and his company. He is a genius and Wall Street favorite. I am a genius too so do not forget to study me and my talent in the financial industry. You are not late . 唐炜臻众筹 https://gf.me/u/zbhpn5 埃隆-马斯克,大名鼎鼎的超级天才 震惊华尔街的薪酬计划 2012年,在马斯克的带领下,特斯拉的市值达到了39亿美元之巨。 这一年,马斯克和特斯拉的董事会达成了协议,把自己的年薪降低到了3.7万美元,也就是月薪3000美元的水平。 而且马斯克还公开表示将不会兑现公司发给他的支票,实现彻底的零薪酬。 为什么马斯克为公司工作还不要钱? 因为董事会授予了马斯克在当时价值7810万美元的股票期权。 这钱可真多,特斯拉的董事会怎么这么大方,其他小股东也同意给马斯克这么多钱么? 难道不领工资,就可以拿这么值钱的期权? 当然不是,根据董事会和马斯克之间的协议,这批期权的兑现是有条件的。 马斯克必须在十年之内,让只值39亿的特斯拉,市值超过432亿美元。 达不到这个条件,则期权作废,马斯克白干十年。 如果达到了这个条件,那么马斯克会被授予现值7810万美元的期权股票,如果到时候市值再翻10倍,就是7.8亿美元。 发7.8亿美元的工资贵不贵? 很贵,但如果马斯克带着一个只值39亿美元的特斯拉赚到了接近400亿美元。 那7.8亿美元的工资可真不贵。 这样的CEO,有多少我要多少。 但马斯克只花了5年多,就让特斯拉的市值增长了10倍,成功的拿到了这笔巨额期权。 2018年1月,特斯拉董事会通过决议,公布了埃隆·马斯克未来十年的薪酬方案。 奖金规模之大,震动了整个华尔街。 根据特斯拉董事会的决议,未来十年,特斯拉不需要给马斯克支付一分钱的工资。 但是,未来特斯拉会授予马斯克价值550亿美元的期权。 整个华尔街,乃至于全球,就没见过这么恐怖的奖励计划。 但在特斯拉的股东大会上,大小股东们一致通过了这个计划,心甘情愿的给马斯克钱。 因为马斯克想拿到这550亿美元,就需要在十年之内,带领特斯拉达到市值6500亿美元的水平。 而2018年的特斯拉,市值才432亿美元。 宝马、法拉利、通用这些老牌汽车巨头,到今天,市值也就500~600亿美元的水平。 马斯克说,他的特斯拉价值12个法拉利或者宝马。 呵呵哒,马斯克你自己开心就好。 你自己签的合同说你未来十年不要工资的哦,达不到自己宣称的目标导致拿不到钱,这可不怪我们哦。 因为这个目标过于吓人,特斯拉董事会善解人意的将这笔奖励计划分解为了12层,每达到一层就可以拿到少量部分奖励。 但即便如此,每一层要求增长的市值也达到了500亿美元之巨。 哪怕只达到第一层,也需要让特斯拉的市值翻倍,或者说再造一个宝马。 也只有马斯克这样的狂人,才敢提出这样的薪酬计划。 被资本侵蚀的马斯克 马斯克对于利润和效率的无止尽追求,是一种典型的资本主义精英的行为。 确实带给了人类福祉,但天才的马斯克,最终也被资本侵蚀。 在2018年和董事会达成了新的薪酬激励计划后,马斯克开始疯狂的想尽一切办法提升特斯拉的产能。 为了提升产能,马斯克甚至直接睡在了工厂的地板上,不断的优化特斯拉的生产流程。 但是这还是不够,美国的产能不足。 为此,早已成为了亿万富翁的马斯克,千里迢迢的来到了中国上海,在这里和当地政府官员一起吃煎饼果子,只为了能找到一个满意的地方建特斯拉超级工厂。

埃隆-马斯克,大名鼎鼎的超级天才

埃隆-马斯克,大名鼎鼎的超级天才,放在整个人类族群中都出类拔萃的那种天才。

超级英雄钢铁侠的现实原型,就是马斯克。

在拍摄电影《钢铁侠》前,导演乔恩·费夫洛还特意让主演小罗伯特·唐尼去SpaceX工厂里去跟马斯克聊天,学习并模仿马斯克那玩世不恭的气质。

有些天才,被资本侵蚀成了蠢货
1971年,马斯克出生在南非。
1981年,10岁的马斯克接触到了计算机,并自学编程。
1983年,12岁的马斯克将他制作出的游戏 Blastar,以500美元的价格成功出售。
1989年,18岁的马斯克移居加拿大,在这里攻读本科学位。
1992年,21岁的马斯克,来到美国宾夕法尼亚大学求学。
1995年,24岁的马斯克考取了应用物理学的博士入学资格。
刚入学两天,马斯克就决定退学,开始自主创业。
当年,马斯克做出了一个产品叫 Zip2,类似于大众点评,并大肆融资扩张。
1999年, Zip2被Compaq 以3亿美元的价格收购,马斯克个人入账2000万美金。
这一年,马斯克28岁。
当年,马斯克又创立了一家公司Paypal,杀入了在线支付领域,类似于后来的支付宝。
2002年,Ebay以15亿美元的价格收购了Paypal,马斯克个人税后套现了1.8亿美元。
这一年,马斯克31岁。
当年,马斯克又创立了一家公司,SpaceX,宣称要造火箭,发明出人人都可使用的廉价火箭,最终目标是带领人类殖民火星。。。
2004年,SpaceX第一枚火箭连影都没的时候,马斯克又又创立了一家公司,叫特斯拉,宣称要造出世界上最优秀的电动汽车,一统全球汽车界。
2008年下半年,SpaceX成为了继美俄中之后全球第四个可以发射和回收航天器的组织。
但前三者是国家,且为联合国五常级别的国家,而SpaceX只是一家公司。
到了今天,SpaceX甚至成功发射了迄今地球上运载能力最强的猎鹰号火箭,并在猎鹰火箭上放了一辆特斯拉。
而特斯拉,也成为了全球最大市值的车企,市值已经达到宝马汽车的近10倍。
马斯克说,他计划未来老死在火星之上。
有些天才,被资本侵蚀成了蠢货
无论从任何角度看,这都是一个天才,属于全人类的天才。
震惊华尔街的薪酬计划
2012年,在马斯克的带领下,特斯拉的市值达到了39亿美元之巨。
这一年,马斯克和特斯拉的董事会达成了协议,把自己的年薪降低到了3.7万美元,也就是月薪3000美元的水平。
而且马斯克还公开表示将不会兑现公司发给他的支票,实现彻底的零薪酬。
为什么马斯克为公司工作还不要钱?
因为董事会授予了马斯克在当时价值7810万美元的股票期权。
这钱可真多,特斯拉的董事会怎么这么大方,其他小股东也同意给马斯克这么多钱么?
难道不领工资,就可以拿这么值钱的期权?
当然不是,根据董事会和马斯克之间的协议,这批期权的兑现是有条件的。
马斯克必须在十年之内,让只值39亿的特斯拉,市值超过432亿美元。
达不到这个条件,则期权作废,马斯克白干十年。
如果达到了这个条件,那么马斯克会被授予现值7810万美元的期权股票,如果到时候市值再翻10倍,就是7.8亿美元。
发7.8亿美元的工资贵不贵?
很贵,但如果马斯克带着一个只值39亿美元的特斯拉赚到了接近400亿美元。
那7.8亿美元的工资可真不贵。
这样的CEO,有多少我要多少。
但马斯克只花了5年多,就让特斯拉的市值增长了10倍,成功的拿到了这笔巨额期权。
2018年1月,特斯拉董事会通过决议,公布了埃隆·马斯克未来十年的薪酬方案。
奖金规模之大,震动了整个华尔街。
根据特斯拉董事会的决议,未来十年,特斯拉不需要给马斯克支付一分钱的工资。
但是,未来特斯拉会授予马斯克价值550亿美元的期权。
整个华尔街,乃至于全球,就没见过这么恐怖的奖励计划。
但在特斯拉的股东大会上,大小股东们一致通过了这个计划,心甘情愿的给马斯克钱。
因为马斯克想拿到这550亿美元,就需要在十年之内,带领特斯拉达到市值6500亿美元的水平。
而2018年的特斯拉,市值才432亿美元。
宝马、法拉利、通用这些老牌汽车巨头,到今天,市值也就500~600亿美元的水平。
马斯克说,他的特斯拉价值12个法拉利或者宝马。
呵呵哒,马斯克你自己开心就好。
你自己签的合同说你未来十年不要工资的哦,达不到自己宣称的目标导致拿不到钱,这可不怪我们哦。
因为这个目标过于吓人,特斯拉董事会善解人意的将这笔奖励计划分解为了12层,每达到一层就可以拿到少量部分奖励。
但即便如此,每一层要求增长的市值也达到了500亿美元之巨。
哪怕只达到第一层,也需要让特斯拉的市值翻倍,或者说再造一个宝马。
也只有马斯克这样的狂人,才敢提出这样的薪酬计划。
被资本侵蚀的马斯克
马斯克对于利润和效率的无止尽追求,是一种典型的资本主义精英的行为。
确实带给了人类福祉,但天才的马斯克,最终也被资本侵蚀。
在2018年和董事会达成了新的薪酬激励计划后,马斯克开始疯狂的想尽一切办法提升特斯拉的产能。
为了提升产能,马斯克甚至直接睡在了工厂的地板上,不断的优化特斯拉的生产流程。
但是这还是不够,美国的产能不足。
为此,早已成为了亿万富翁的马斯克,千里迢迢的来到了中国上海,在这里和当地政府官员一起吃煎饼果子,只为了能找到一个满意的地方建特斯拉超级工厂。
有些天才,被资本侵蚀成了蠢货
为推动中国特斯拉超级工厂,和特朗普关系非常好的马斯克,在整个中美贸易冲突期间,未发声攻击过中国一次,对于任何可能损害中国利益的话题均闭口不谈。
这一切,带来的是上海特斯拉超级工厂的高效率,以及庞大的产能。
马斯克对此非常满意。
2020年1月7日,国产特斯拉Model 3正式交付,马斯克开心的现场表演了一段热舞,并将热舞的视频上传到了推特,并发文大赞中国特斯拉团队。
有些天才,被资本侵蚀成了蠢货
这个阶段的马斯克,尚属正常,不断追求更高的生产效率不仅仅是资本家的义务,也是全人类的需求。
这是一个利人利己的阶段。
但是在美国的疫情爆发后,马斯克变了。
特斯拉确实在上海建设了一家超级工厂,但特斯拉的绝大多数产能,都在美国。
2020年4月,为对抗疫情,美国政府颁布了“居家令”,要求美国公民呆在家里不要上班。
全美国第一个跳出来抗议居家令,且抗议程度最激烈的顶级企业家,就是马斯克。
当特斯拉在加州和旧金山的工厂被政府要求停工时,马斯克愤怒了。
4月29日,马斯克公开炮轰美国政府,说美国颁布的居家隔离措施是“法西斯主义”,是“不道德的”和“事实上的软禁”。
有些天才,被资本侵蚀成了蠢货
为解除员工对于新冠病毒的担忧,马斯克说新冠肺炎不过就是一个厉害点的感冒,没什么可担忧的。
同时马斯克表示,哪怕未来研发出了新冠疫苗,自己也绝对不会接种,且自己的家人也不会接种。
有些天才,被资本侵蚀成了蠢货
话里话外马斯克就一个意思,新冠肺炎根本不值得担忧,居家令是愚蠢的,要求特斯拉停工是不可接受的。
记者说,如果疫情扩散,会有很多美国人因此死亡。
马斯克的回答是“人总有一死”。
有些天才,被资本侵蚀成了蠢货
马斯克是人类里的绝对精英,智商超群,他不可能不知道新冠病毒的危害。
但他依然说出了这些看起来很弱智的言论,甚至反对美国人接种疫苗。
这一切,都是为了特斯拉的市值。
美国疫情爆发至今,全国感染了1400万人,但特斯拉的工厂却一天都没有被真正停工,全程高效率的运转。
有些天才,被资本侵蚀成了蠢货
冒着感染的风险全力工作的特斯拉员工,一批批的死去,但特斯拉的市值,却出现了爆发式增长。
2020年3月,因为对疫情导致停工的担忧,特斯拉的市值一度跌落到了682亿美元的水平。
但马斯克坚持生产后,特斯拉市值暴涨。
短短的半年时间里,特斯拉的市值就上涨到了到了接近5000亿美元,一个不可思议的水平。
有些天才,被资本侵蚀成了蠢货
而今天特斯拉的最新市值,已经攀升到了5500亿的水平。
半年,9倍!
如果马斯克因为担忧工人死亡而让工厂停工,特斯拉还会涨出今天这么恐怖的市值么?
今天的特斯拉,离2018年马斯克宣布的6500亿美元市值目标,只差一步,再涨10%就可以了。
马斯克即将拿到自己550亿美元的报酬,但他并没有花费10年,仅仅只花费了2年多。
毫无疑问这是一个奇迹,一个资本的奇迹。
代价,是死了很多特斯拉的工人。
当然,在马斯克的眼里,这也许不算什么太大的代价,也许还抵不上停工一天的损失。
马斯克是一个工作狂,每周的工作时间高达100小时,也就是说每天的工作时间超过了14个小时,远远超过996的工作强度。
天才,且努力。
但他根本不在意劳动人民的死活。
马斯克本质上不是什么坏人,甚至更像一个淳朴接地气的大男孩,但当他被资本裹挟且异化后,就变成了现在这个样子。
天下熙熙皆为利来,天下攘攘皆为利往。
很多美国精英其实都知道新冠肺炎是怎么一回事,也知道应该如何消灭这个病毒。
他们之所以做出很多看起来非常愚蠢的言行,不是真的蠢。
而是因为他们在故意装蠢。

 

「版权声明:多维客是一个汇聚各方言论的平台,所述观点不代表本网立场。如有侵权文章或者图片,请立即联系我们。」

Thanks to Pages of My Blog Viewers and Readers Comments Leave a Comment / Blogs / By admin

  1. krediservin@gmail.com | https://www.hurriyet.com.tr/yerel-haberler/ankara/kredi-cetesi-cokertildi-41420879 |

Thanks for some other fantastic post. The place else could anybody get that kind of information in such a perfect way of writing? I’ve a presentation subsequent week, and I’m on the search for such information.

  1. 918kiss How To WinFilomenaRoot@final.intained.com | com/__media__/js/netsoltrademark.php?d=Www.Smore.com%2Frytas-mobile-slot-games |

It’s perfect time to make a few plans for the long run and it is time to be happy. I’ve read this put up and if I could I want to suggest you some interesting things or suggestions. Maybe you could write subsequent articles referring to this article. I want to read even more things about it! http://wholesaleford.com/__media__/js/netsoltrademark.php?d=Www.Smore.com%2Frytas-mobile-slot-games

  1. gamefly free trialzorapetit@peacemail.com | com/y6oczhvt |

Thanks for a marvelous posting! I definitely enjoyed reading it, you could be a great author. I will make certain to bookmark your blog and will eventually come back later in life. I want to encourage yourself to continue your great posts, have a nice evening!

  1. gamefly free trialdennis@yahoo.de | t.co/fouyz4rDmL |

Hi there! I’m at work browsing your blog from my new iphone 4! Just wanted to say I love reading through your blog and look forward to all your posts! Carry on the fantastic work!

  1. instant cash advance usaofelia_kuykendall@gmail.com | Ob.ejam.Esa.le.ngjianf.Ei2013lulle.sakura.ne.jp/cgi-bin/kemobook/g_book.cgi/a%C3%BFveronica%C3%BFexternal%20nofollow/summary/g_book.cgi?fromurl=redirect.asp |

Get the cash advance you need with a payday mortgage and reserve your savings for what might be lengthy-time period monetary hardship.

  1. minecrafterrollancaster@gmail.com | com/y2y2tj9j |

you are actually a good webmaster. The web site loading velocity is amazing.

It kind of feels that you are doing any distinctive trick. Also, The contents are masterwork. you have performed a fantastic job in this subject!

  1. minecraftreed_venn@zoho.com | com/y3bqtbwy |

I’ve learn some excellent stuff here. Certainly value bookmarking for revisiting. I surprise how much effort you put to make one of these excellent informative site.

minecraft | inabandy@gmail.com | j.mp/2CwylAH |

My partner and I stumbled over here from a different page and thought I should check things out. I like what I see so I am just following you. Look forward to finding out about your web page yet again.

  1. http://tinyurl.com/yxdznwedcarrell@yahoo.de | tinyurl.com/yxdznwed |

Write more, thats all I have to say. Literally, it seems as though you relied on the video to make your point. You definitely know what you are talking about, why throw away your intelligence on just posting videos to your site when you could be giving us something enlightening to read?

  1. http://tinyurl.comcarri_prenzel@aol.com | com/yxsbqby4 |

Wow! In the end I got a webpage from where I know how to actually take valuable information concerning my study and knowledge.

  1. http://tinyurl.com/y6bqgudbstewartmacartney@hotmail.de | com/y6bqgudb |

Hello there! Would you mind if I share your blog with my facebook group?

There’s a lot of people that I think would really appreciate your content. Please let me know. Cheers

  1. http://goo.gl/8r1Yuulawrencepalmer@gawab.com | gl/8r1Yuu |

I’m extremely impressed with your writing skills and also with the layout on your blog. Is this a paid theme or did you modify it yourself? Anyway keep up the excellent quality writing, it is rare to see a nice blog like this one nowadays.

  1. minecraftjennibarrenger@gmail.com | com/2CwylAH |

Hi, i feel that i saw you visited my web site so i came to go back the want?.I’m attempting to to find issues to enhance my web site!I guess its ok to use some of your ideas!!

  1. http://goo.gl/8r1Yuujoanbernays@bigstring.com | gl/8r1Yuu |

Its not my first time to visit this web site, i am visiting this site dailly and get good information from here every day.

  1. best yano purple porno 2018chew@gmail.com | indycarnation.indycar.com/member-news/2018/04/30/know-before-you-go-indycar-grand-prix |

Hello my loved one! I want to say that this article is amazing, great written and come with almost all important infos. I’d like to peer extra posts like this .

  1. newtown casino picturesAllisonPinto@winie.club | com/__media__/js/netsoltrademark.php?d=ntc33.fun%2Findex.php%2Fother-games%2F15-ntc33 |

These bonuses are fixed regardless of how big your initial deposit happens to be. Once conscious how to put the bets on the roulette board the game becomes very simple and easy to play. http://umassrentals.com/__media__/js/netsoltrademark.php?d=ntc33.fun%2Findex.php%2Fother-games%2F15-ntc33

  1. Johnalgeranoff@yahoo.de | foxnews.net |

Does your site have a contact page? I’m having trouble locating it but, I’d like to shoot you an e-mail. I’ve got some suggestions for your blog you might be interested in hearing. Either way, great blog and I look forward to seeing it grow over time. It is perfect time to make some plans for the future and it is time to be happy. I have learn this publish and if I could I wish to recommend you few interesting things or suggestions. Maybe you could write next articles referring to this article. I wish to learn more things about it! It is perfect time to make some plans for the future and it is time to be happy. I’ve read this post and if I could I desire to suggest you some interesting things or advice. Perhaps you can write next articles referring to this article. I wish to read more things about it! http://foxnews.net/

Feel free to surf to my blog :: John

  1. online poker delawareDana-Balfe56@dagel4.plasticvouchercards.com | net/__media__/js/netsoltrademark.php?d=scr888.group%2Flive-casino-games%2F2485-3win8 |

And, even if you do, produces just raise it when! How do you selection . topics for writing? What was the before a tiger ate a man or woman? Riddle me this: at the age of does a person’s life become worthless?

  1. 918kissAretha_Halfey@harrer.fastlasermouses.com | com/918kiss-most-popular-online-slot-game |

With blackjack you play a card game against the bank. It will possibly not be identical to a real casino.

So, act intelligently and select the room that has least sites. http://www.kingsandqueensonline.com/918kiss-most-popular-online-slot-game

  1. ocean king 2 jammerVidaLyon@kennie.club | com/ads.php?url=lookforadentist.com/__media__/js/netsoltrademark.php?d=918Kiss.bid%2Fgames%2Fjoker-123 The best way to build trust is to always put out good content. The more places you are seen, the stronger your message will is. The one underlying factor is “white hat techniques” always do the right thing.
  2. minecraftchristin_thomason@live.com | gl/MGsuHp
  3. I want to thank you for this wonderful read!! I definitely loved every little bit of it. I have got you book-marked to check out new things you post…
  4. 토토사이트whish@yahoo.com | https://totositegg.com | Definitely consider that which you stated. Your favorite justification appeared to be at the net the simplest thing to have in mind of. I say to you, I definitely get irked even as other people think about issues that they plainly do not understand about. You controlled to hit the nail upon the highest and outlined out the entire thing with no need side effect , other people could take a signal. Will probably be back to get more. Thanks!
  5. 바카라사이트주소nereidaperdue@arcor.de | https://view999.com

It’s hard to find experienced people in this particular subject, however, you sound like you know what you’re talking about! Thanks

  1. 188betleonaymyattd@mail.ru | com/clickout/?url=mbet88vn.com |

I am really impressed with your writing skills and also with the layout on your weblog. Is this a paid theme or did you modify it yourself? Either way keep up the excellent quality writing, it is rare to see a great blog like this one nowadays. http://www.afspraakjes.com/clickout/?url=http://www.mbet88vn.com

  1. Jeffjeff@jghr.ca | ca |

老唐,有空来加国华人(jghr.ca)网站逛逛,诚挚邀请您到加国华人自媒体开通专栏!

  1. Phytolast Male Enhancementaimee@get-bitcoins.club | com/wiki/index.php/Super_Size_Me_2_Dangerous_Male_Enhancement_Myths_Which_Can_Mangle_Your_Manhood |

Now I am going to do my breakfast, once having my breakfast coming yet again to read more news. http://shahyan.com/wiki/index.php/Super_Size_Me_2_Dangerous_Male_Enhancement_Myths_Which_Can_Mangle_Your_Manhood

  1. purchase spirotone shop europemodestowootton@t-online.de | it/index.php?option=com_k2&view=itemlist&task=user&id=213505 |

Hi there, You’ve done an incredible job. I will definitely dig it and personally suggest to my friends.

I am confident they’ll be benefited from this website.

  1.  peterlee6489@gmail.com | 51.ca/u-304485 |

啊!是这样

  1. 18haoaaronqaz3@gmail.com | 51.ca/u-755439 |
  2. hiantwancrace@t-online.de | net |

I visited multiple websites but the audio feature for audio songs current at this web page is actually fabulous.

  1. hijacquieperea@gmail.com | net |

If some one wishes to be updated with hottest technologies afterward he must be pay a quick visit this web site and be up to date daily.

  1. hidongheron@bigstring.com | net |

Wonderful beat ! I would like to apprentice at the same time as you amend your web site, how could i subscribe for a weblog web site? The account helped me a appropriate deal. I were a little bit acquainted of this your broadcast offered vibrant clear concept

  1. hiroslynburchett@gmail.com | net |

I every time spent my half an hour to read this weblog’s articles all the time along with a mug of coffee.

  1. himarladarnell@inbox.com | net |

With having so much content and articles do you ever run into any issues of plagorism or copyright violation? My website has a lot of completely unique content I’ve either authored myself or outsourced but it seems a lot of it is popping it up all over the internet without my permission. Do you know any solutions to help stop content from being ripped off? I’d genuinely appreciate it.

  1. hifrancine_tulaba@gmail.com | net |

Hi there, You have done an incredible job. I will certainly dig it and personally recommend to my friends. I am confident they’ll be benefited from this website.

  1. hilucaheil@gawab.com | net |

I do not know if it’s just me or if everybody else encountering issues with your website. It seems like some of the text in your posts are running off the screen. Can somebody else please provide feedback and let me know if this is happening to them as well? This might be a problem with my internet browser because I’ve had this happen previously. Many thanks

  1. hiemilia_kirkby@gmail.com | net |

Keep on working, great job!

  1. hicletaservice@gmx.net | net |

I don’t even know how I ended up here, but I thought this post was good. I don’t know who you are but certainly you’re going to a famous blogger if you are not already  Cheers!

  1. hieverett_pye@gmail.com | net |

I was able to find good info from your articles.

  1. 炜臻wtang108@yahoo.com | 51.ca/u-1586 |

不经风雨没有见识 – 2011年12月13日 15:18 西方为了拯救自己的经济,对世界的掠夺从恶意打压丰田开始到摧毁中国在北美的上市公司,再一次验证了老唐的睿见。中国人要么世世代代做良民、有些人做愚民,要么团结起来在这个世界上找到自己的位置。

看看Patric Chen在媒体公开认同自己的华裔根源后,西方人的恶毒反应后,你还能再骂老唐是精神病吗?

佩服老唐的毅力,魄力。

不经风雨没有见识 – 2011年12月13日 16:27 老唐,陈德源, 以及许多中国人在北美被摧毁的公司,只是美国竭力阻止中国崛起的许多无硝烟的战争中的一部分. 既然无硝烟,中国人就应该用自己的智慧来保卫属于自己的经济成果. 任何妥协和退让都被看作是软弱无能的表现.

不经风雨没有见识 – 2011年12月13日 17:54 一个智慧的人是无价的。他只有一个脑袋,但是不是千万个人的脑袋可以屏凑出来的;他单枪匹马,但是他可以调动千军万马。曼德拉坐牢时,有多少局外人会认为他会成为以后的南非总统;邓小平被一次、两次、三次被打倒时,有多少中国人会认为他东山再起,推广猫论。大事发生都有其合理理由的,老唐也不例外。

  1. Purchase Prometrium 40 Mgguercio@gmail.com | mmwg.com/UserProfile/tabid/61/userId/14336955/Default.aspx |

Excellent post! We are linking to this great content on our site. Keep up the great writing.

  1. 侠肠义骨lqjty2002@yahoo.com | 51.ca/u-7831 |

我一直在支持您!您送我的中国的巴菲特一书,我永远保存!

  1. Lelio Vieira Carneiro Juniorlucasadler@arcor.de | https://www.jusbrasil.com.br/topicos/41582946/lelio-vieira-carneiro-junior |

I think this is among the so much vital information for me. And i am glad studying your article. However should statement on some common things, The web site style is perfect, the articles is truly nice : D. Good job, cheers

  1. instacart coupondeliahuskey@inbox.com | gl/CF7dgt |

Greetings I am so thrilled I found your blog, I really found you by mistake, while I was researching on Google for something else, Anyways I am here now and would just like to say thanks a lot for a incredible post and a all round entertaining blog (I also love the theme/design), I don’t have time to go through it all at the minute but I have saved it and also added your RSS feeds, so when I have time I will be back to read a great deal more, Please do keep up the awesome work.

  1. http://tinyurl.com/y82ykct7tajkahn@googlemail.com | com/y82ykct7 |

Keep this going please, great job!

  1. instacart coupon august 2017jody_goode@t-online.de | ly/2x1jeet |

What a data of un-ambiguity and perseveres of precious knowledge on the topic of unpredicted feelings.

  1. comsunny.manzo@gmail.com | tinyurl.com/y9o5vypg

I like the valuable information you supply in your articles. I will bookmark your weblog and check again right here regularly. I’m fairly sure I’ll be informed lots of new stuff proper here! Best of luck for the following!

  1. comtaj_blanchard@moose-mail.com | tinyurl.com/ycpneu7x

Good post. I learn something new and challenging on blogs I stumble upon on a daily basis. It’s always useful to read articles from other writers and practice a little something from other websites.

  1. comwinifred_fleischer@gmail.com | tinyurl.com/y7e3pj29 |

In fact no matter if someone doesn’t be aware of after that its up to other viewers that they will help, so here it happens.

  1. Latashialonnie_arrowood@gmail.com | com.br/index.php/component/k2/itemlist/user/120309.html | IP 地址: 108.162.219.216

This post is invaluable. When can I find out more?

  1. Eugenepeggybustillos@animail.net | com.br/augusto-de-arruda-botelho |

If some one wishes expert view concerning running a blog after that i recommend him/her to pay a visit this blog, Keep up the nice work.

  1. Georges Sadalacandra_tapia@inbox.com | co/georges-sadala-rihan | Hey there! Do you know if they make any plugins to assist with Search Engine Optimization? I’m trying to get my blog to rank for some targeted keywords but I’m not seeing very good gains. If you know of any please share. Thanks!
  2. Finlaytysonmansergh@gawab.com | info/georges-sadala-rihan |

I am extremely inspired with your writing skills and also with the layout for your weblog. Is that this a paid subject or did you modify it yourself? Either way keep up the excellent high quality writing, it is rare to peer a great blog like this one these days..

  1. Georges Sadalaalissahale@aol.com | com.br |

These are truly fantastic ideas in regarding blogging. You have touched some good factors here. Any way keep up writing.

  1. Brodiepennycaple@f-m.fm | com/georges-sadala-rihan-images | IP 地址: 162.158.63.30

Hi there! I’m at work surfing around your blog from my new iphone! Just wanted to say I love reading your blog and look forward to all your posts! Keep up the fantastic work!

  1. Itamar Serpa Fernandesmarcialuscombe@web.de | ly/cs2zg | IP 地址: 162.158.62.233

Awesome things here. I am very glad to look your post. Thank you so much and I am taking a look forward to touch you. Will you please drop me a mail?

  1. Itamar Serpa Fernandespasqualekirk@zoho.com | pl/2uoxj |

Appreciate this post. Let me try it out.

  1. Jeanninekellyeeasterby@inbox.com | com.ec/index.php/component/k2/itemlist/user/908715 |

Very energetic post, I loved that a lot. Will there be a part 2?

  1. Felishainariver@gmail.com | sakura.ne.jp/eso/index.php/3586575-colorado-legislature-and-politics-roundup/0 |

Hi there! This post couldn’t be written any better! Looking through this post reminds me of my previous roommate! He continually kept talking about this.

I’ll forward this post to him. Fairly certain he’s going to have a great read. Thank you for sharing!

  1. Tishanilaodoms@yahoo.com | grupo-arsa.com/index.php/component/k2/itemlist/user/110062 |

Hi there Dear, are you genuinely visiting this website regularly, if so after that you will absolutely take good know-how.

  1. Augusto de Arruda Botelholuciekoertig@googlemail.com | ly/2noNb2j

Hello There. I found your blog using msn. This is a really well written article.

I’ll be sure to bookmark it and return to learn more of your useful information. Thanks for the post. I will definitely comeback.

  1. Augusto de Arruda Botelhoianbadillo@gawab.com | ly/2noNb2j |

Howdy very cool site!! Guy .. Beautiful .. Wonderful .. I will bookmark your website and take the feeds additionally?

I’m satisfied to search out so many helpful info here in the publish, we need work out extra strategies on this regard, thank you for sharing. . . . . .

  1. Augusto de Arruda Botelhobetche@yahoo.com | bit.ly/2noNb2j

I think everything composed made a bunch of sense. But, what about this? what if you wrote a catchier title? I ain’t suggesting your content is not good., however what if you added a headline that grabbed a person’s attention? I mean 大陆移民生存与发展 » 第一部分:唐炜臻案件陈述 is kinda boring. You ought to peek at Yahoo’s home page and see how they create post titles to grab people interested. You might try adding a video or a related picture or two to get readers excited about everything’ve written. Just my opinion, it could bring your website a little livelier.

  1. Augusto de Arruda Botelhophares@elitemail.org | bit.ly/2noNb2j | I read this piece of writing fully about the comparison of most recent and earlier technologies, it’s awesome article.
  2. Augusto de Arruda Botelhonewberry@gmail.com | bit.ly/2noNb2j | Hi there, i read your blog occasionally and i own a similar one and i was just curious if you get a lot of spam comments?

If so how do you prevent it, any plugin or anything you can suggest? I get so much lately it’s driving me mad so any support is very much appreciated.

  1. Augusto de Arruda Botelhojoshhollis@live.com | ly/2noNb2j | IP 地址: 162.158.90.158

I’ve been browsing online more than 4 hours today, yet I never found any interesting article like yours.

It’s pretty worth enough for me. In my opinion, if all site owners and bloggers made good content as you did, the internet will be much more useful than ever before.

  1. Augusto de Arruda Botelhothomasjenkinson@gawab.com | ly/2noNb2j |

If some one needs expert view on the topic of blogging afterward i suggest him/her to pay a visit this website, Keep up the good work.

  1. Augusto de Arruda Botelhovincemeyers@freenet.de | ly/2noNb2j

It is not my first time to go to see this website, i am browsing this site dailly and get good data from here everyday.

  1. igfleta_kong@live.com | pages10.com/Top-3-known-Reasons-For-Getting-air-con-Ducts-Cleaned-At-Regular-Intervals-4856608 |

Your style is unique compared to other people I have read stuff from.

I appreciate you for posting when you’ve got the opportunity, Guess I will just bookmark this page.

  1. igtreybyers@yahoo.com | https://www.kickstarter.com/profile/1728101614/about |

Yes! Finally something about ig.

  1. igharriettheadlam@gmail.com | fnst.org/index.php?option=com_k2&view=itemlist&task=user&id=2949549 |

I like the valuable information you provide in your articles.

I’ll bookmark your weblog and check again here regularly. I am quite sure I will learn a lot of new stuff right here! Best of luck for the next!

  1. igtristavalencia@yahoo.de | blog.fc2.com/blog-entry-1.html |

Awesome post.

  1. Odessagregoriohewitt@gmail.com | com/__media__/js/netsoltrademark.php?d=cbdoil.jimdo.com |

Do you mind if I quote a couple of your articles as long as I provide credit and sources back to your weblog? My website is in the exact same area of interest as yours and my users would really benefit from some of the information you provide here. Please let me know if this alright with you. Thank you!

My blog post :: CBD (Odessa)

  1. Claudiowadeweatherly@root.britted.com | https://laceydentist.wordpress.com |

Thank you for sharing superb information’s. Your web-site is very cool. I am impressed by the details that you’ve on this web site. It reveals how nicely you understand this subject. Bookmarked this website page, will come back for extra articles. You, my friend, ROCK! I found just the information I already searched everywhere and simply couldn’t come across. What an ideal site.

my web blog :: sedation dentistry (Claudiohttps://laceydentist.wordpress.com/

  1. Jimmywilheminastrain1767@mailcatch.com | net |

I love what you guys are up too. This kind of clever work and exposure! Keep up the amazing works guys I’ve added you guys to my blogroll.

Also visit my web-site :: Jimmy http://www.yahoo.net

  1. 枫下ars@126.com |

唐先生要知道,国家之间的争斗跟法律没有什么关系,所以中国不理是对的,否则中国还要出律师费。唐先生打官司说是用知识,其实完全错了,所以你失败了。中国要做的是做国际法的制定者和执行者。毛泽东的魄力就是在解放后废除所有的不平等条约,西方列强也无可奈何,朝鲜战争和联合国军对抗,更是被全世界谴责。可是对所谓国际法的藐视,换来了各国对中华民族的不敢小视。归根结底,实力决定一切。

  1. homes for sale in Olympia WAdalenebatchelor72@root.britted.com | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8mMmXObJbo |

I think the admin of this website is really working hard for his web page, since here every material is quality based material.

Also visit my web-site – homes for sale in Olympia WA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8mMmXObJbo

  1. 炜臻wtang108@yahoo.com | 51.ca/u-1586 |

南海仲裁其實小事一樁,人們卻大驚小怪 時間:2016-07-23 08:33瀏覽:107 收藏

Wechat 4

南海仲裁是法律程序,過程和仲裁初步結果,不合法,可以上國際法庭和聯合國搞個合法的。

人們不懂法律,一有風吹草動,就驚慌失措,所以大驚小怪。

如果我是中共,我到法庭打的他們落花流水,打官司是一本萬利的事,我們為什么不做?

不是一成不變的。只要通過法律程序和過程,可以得到另外的結果和判決。

首先是補課,跟我一樣,學習,實踐,再學習,再實踐就可以搬過來。我即使沒有錢,也能打,讓他們膽顫心驚。

中國人用實力,武力威脅,外交手段和媒體是牛頭不對馬嘴,都不能解決問題,要以毒攻毒,用法律針鋒相對才是解決問題的辦法,亡羊補牢為時不晚。

  1. 炜臻wtang108@yahoo.com | 51.ca/u-1586 |

唐炜臻正在从是一个冷门,十分重要的工作和事业,造福海外华人和全球华人的事业,走法律财富之路。 华人对打官司一直没有认识,人们害怕司法,没有信心,纷纷避而远之,没有人知道我目前的司法斗争的重要性和深远意义,所以不支持,更不赞助。

  1. RCrobertchoi@hotmail.com |

这是个好孩子,需要帮助。。

老唐的问题老唐自己处理, 社会机构为何要牵连打击一个孩子? 在这个时候,这个孩子最需要社会和学校的帮助。

孩子,挺住!, 人总会遇到困难的,但要相信艰难的时候会过去的! 不要放弃你的信仰。。

Why I give investors money, return, not

Why  I give investors money, return, not risk? It is true or false

 

It is a well-known fact that investment is risk, It is unbelievable  for someone to bear others’  investment losses, which is the only reason I went to the prison.

Why  I give investors money and take risks for investors? Because I am a capable, credible person, dare to think, dare to say, dare to do and to be responsible,  be a very famous, a promising and momentum-driving  person,  I make the Western society and their people fear, I  mastered the two magic weapons of Western society:  Finance and Justice.

Many people generally think that it is a lie to give investors money, because people are used to defraud  investors’ money, and the suppression of the government’s judicial system  has given me a brand of a crime, stop  me to give investors money to make me a criminal, my great dream and goals have been  slanged to become  a scam.

People don’t know and completely misunderstand the purpose and motivation of me taking risks for investors.

I am kind, ethical, conscience, proactive and charismatic leader, daring to be the first. It is the key and core of the road to my wealth that goes to  Weizhen Tang Wealth, that is, for investment. People make money, in fact, there are very profound reasons and mysteries to give investors’ money, not to take their money. I always wanted to explain to everyone and the public to correct people’s misunderstandings about me and to succeed.

The purpose of the investment is to make money, not for risk. The government and people stress that the risk is to be the responsibility of the investor, because most people do not know how to invest, once they invest, the loss is affirmative, it is  a  matter of the  time,  if they lose, they should not blame others for their losses , give the troubles for  other people, even go to the court, there is a reasons for it, capitalist is a casino and make investors to gamble. The people’s brains have already been washed to take their own loss.

The average person does not know how to invest and where to go and does not have the risk-taking ability.

Most investment managers  do not have the  ability and willingness to take the risk for  others. This is what Weizhen Tang differs from others.

Everyone knows that if you want to make money, you must invest.  You need to make money with money , that is the way to make money in the western society.

The best way to make money is to find a good and capable investor, or to find some stocks, speculate foreign currencies, to invest in real estate, or private business or projects.

Everyone is different, and each has its own opinions and practices. The most effective way  about investing is to find  the people who can make money, I choose to invest people who can make money and the stocks they operate, and find the driving force behind  the people and the stock and the strength of progress. I carefully observe and  watch them. Therefore, the way I invest in stocks is to Watch the people, the key is to look at the company’s CEO , his character, his motivation, his ideals and goals, the way to make money, is the investor, not the table s and charts and reports.

So I want  investors to invest is  to invest  me, investing in me, study  my character, my ability and confidence about my ideals and goals, researching my abilities and past experience, not the stocks and foreign exchange I invest in, or other investment vehicles.  My Investors feel that it makes sense to invest in me, so hundreds of investors give me the money, total 59 million dollars in three years.

The investment I choose must be profitable, at least 1% or more per week, and has to be more than 50% a year. So I can  promise investors 1% per week which  I have a well-documented evidence that I could do.  I cannot  just say it by using my head. I said that it’s that I am  honest. Otherwise it is the real liar. I used to, and now in order to achieve my goal. I must prove that I am a person who can make real money, not by saying, but by doing it, doing it for everyone, and being a person  honest. I not only use past performance, but also have to use real performance. Investors are very difficult to convince to give me the money , it needs actions because they give you their life time  savings and hard-earned money.  In order to convince my investors that I am a profitable generating person, there is  no risk to  invest with me , I will do my best to protect them.

I have recorded my previous experiences and deeds and wrote a  book ‘ The Chinese Warren Buffett “ Many people have watched  me.  First I tell investors and the public the real story, then, I gave the investors a live demonstration of how I made money from the stock market and foreign exchange market, where is my 1% return and risk theory and practice, my 1% market making theory is also suitable in  casinos to make money, I shew and gave  some big and Important investors demonstrate my money-making skills and magic weapons in the casino and works , I raised tens of millions through my casino demos.

My most effective demonstration is in 1996, in the investor’s mutual fund account in 1997, dozens, even hundreds of mutual fund investors watched and check me and their investment accounts every day, saw  my trading  and performance I performance in their accounts , how I invested for them  in a time People were shocked, amazed, and excited.  It’s a astonishment news go viral and spread  to the whole Toronto Chinese Community and beyond.

Because of my good and well known reputation,  In 1999  a Chinese billionaire found me and wanted to cooperate with me and invited me to visit China to visit Xi’an and Beijing, I did.

The second fruitful demonstration was that after I experienced the big bear market  in the North America stock market, I went to  dead end, because the market is not good enough for investors to fear, not to invest, even if they invest in other places with serious losses, they must take money from us to fill other investments. Loss, In the absence of investors and funds, I went to the largest North American stock forum  and I used my unique vision, superhuman wisdom, and rich stock market experience to give real time stock tips, solve their problems in real time, and give them my market analyses.  Jiangshan, for a while, the netizens were so excited, amazed, and exclaimed that they called me a stock god or guru, claimed that they found an investors’ savior.

The name of my stock god and Chinese Warren Buffett was coming  from here, not self-styled or self claimed.  With this experience, my book is much richer, more lively and exciting to read. This public demonstration and performance of the North American Wenxue  City  lead and laid the foundation for the development of my later “Chinese Warren Buffett “ Wealth Road to success.  At that time I started to write a lot of articles about investment based on my own experience and thoughts. I published them  on the Internet. One of the articles  was Weizhen Tang’s talk about “my view of the mystery of Warren Buffett’s investment”, which attracted the attention of some Chinese authorities. Then, in 2004, I was invested by the President of the Asia Pacific Presidents’ Association. To give public speeches to Chinese National Audience the event was  Warren  Buffett’s theory and practice, the Wealth Forum, which made  a sensation in Beijing and Shanghai. Through this performance on the national stage, I decided to write and publish a book.

2006 “My Buffett Wealth Road” was officially published by the Economic Daily Press in China, the publisher is controlled directly by the State Council of China.

The main content of my book is that I am a person who can make money and how to lead everyone to get rich quick and safe.

A mainland immigrant from the Wall Street financial market in North America, a leading international Chinese figure. When people read this book, especially after carefully reading this book, they can’t help but invest in me.

Everyone said that they  read my book before investing in me and why they invest. My Chinese translator told the police said that he invested in me because he read and translate my book and believe everything I said in the book, which is on YouTube and other investors also said this in court when the crown called them witness.

Because of Ontario Securities Commission and the police, the court, Now if investors are afraid to invest in me and avoid being fooled by my book, they decide not to read my book, not to listen to me, to refuse Weizhen Tang’s wealth and temptation, afraid  to swatch  how I trade stocks and foreign exchange. Because of my stock investing and foreign exchange trading, the trading of options are magical, unique, poisonous, and irresistible temptation.

At the beginning of 2008, I wrote to the media and the world that the US financial market and system were on the verge of collapse so  I didn’t invest much and watching the market down and wait for opportunities so we didn’t lose money from 2008 to 2009.

Because my Investors and investors in North American and the World are afraid of the financial tsunami, they run on me  and withdrew the money, I did not  lose money in the crisis  so I feel very fortunate and proud. I hosted the 2009 the second North American Chinese Wealth Summit to celebrate my great success. I made a keynote speech and caused a great sensation.

To be more convincing from January 25th to 30th, 2009, and to prevent the big impact of the financial tsunami, I did not hesitate to demonstrate my real time trading on the first day of lunar Chinese Year, my trading skills and performance to investors and the media.

On January 25th is the New Year’s Day, I use one  million  dollar investment to trade currencies and earned US$310,000  in a few hours which was video recorded and reported by many media outlets , there is trading record of the Interactive Brokers Canada Inc.  because it was the first time facing the media and all my investors, the pressure was huge, the 5-day demonstration was not very ideal,  The move was shocking. In fact, we still had another account with  about 1 million. From mid-January to mid-month, Ii trade and  earned 5 million dollar profits in five weeks. I received $1 million incentive  and service fees. I have all given all to overseas Chinese Fund Limited partnership investors.

Because the financial tsunami investors were running on me, some people did not get the money in time  and in a hurry, they complained to me through a lawyer. The lawyer did not contact me , but OSC.

At the time of crisis, OSC found me as a target and profiled me as a scapegoat of the financial Tsunami.

Because I don’t understand the Western laws, nobody does, I was maliciously charged and wrongfully convicted a crime over $ 5000 by Canadian authority, the western countries and the so-called law. I was slandered.

I was processed by The Canadian national machine and was  shattered.  Because of my strong will and hard work, I have studied the laws of Canada and the judicial means, the way to plunder and persecute our new immigrants.

I can now make big money with Canadian law and make  back the loss. I want  the Canadian government pay for investors through legal means.

In the past, Ontario securities commission would love  to catch people like me who are famous and rich. Now they  may be afraid to catch me because I understand their law.  I also can use the law to catch their wrongful actions and  problems. I have already caught their misbehavior and evil.

Many people, including lawyers, do not understand the law. I have studied Canadian law for nearly a decade, and I went to court many times to deal with judges and lawyers more than anyone else. My judicial  experience is extremely rich.

I can manage lawyers and give them command and my management skills. Therefore, my future lawsuit will be handy. Many people are now looking for me to help them with a lawsuit, but  they have no money. Once I make money from the financial market, I will help them fight for real crimes, the crime judge and lawyers make.

Investment must be risky. In order to have investors to invest in me, I must attract investors and be credibility.

First of all, I must be a person who can make money and give investors a certain return and make them safe.

Investing in the US financial market is the best way to enter the United States and go global. There are many varieties in the US market, including stocks, bonds, options, and futures. There are many tricks, strategies , you can short and go long, the US financial market is huge, there is government regulation and supervision, and the money is safe in their own account and reliable on its own account. North American stock investment and securities trading are legal contracts with high credibility, high transparency, the index and ETFs are relatively small  in volatility,  easy to control risks, and make easy and stable returns.

I used to give investors a live demonstration how I do and what I do and when I do. I gave the investors money  generously, the purpose of giving investors money is promote and  advertise so that all investors can benefit, as soon as possible for me to achieve institutional and national sovereign investment management so I can  use   big money to make safe return,  use huge funds to make money, and make money with the market dealer’s position. It is easy to use one hundred million and ten billions to earn tens of  millions.

Therefore, it is not difficult to invest money. The financial market in North America is a casino for most investors.

If you invest, you will lose money. If you gamble, you will lose money. If you do business, you will lose. Many people don’t know the truth. Investment  is a trap everywhere.

I can’t pay back investors now. The problem now is that investors and people are working hard without careful study and thinking, they lose confidence of me and think that my reputation is ruined, and there will be no chance for in the  financial investment.

Investors can no longer see if Weizhen Tang  has any magical  power  and will not come back again. The only thing I can’t do now is out of thin air or virtual, empty talk, but I need to work hard to make real money for investors.  Money Talks .

 there must be people with vision, judgement and courage and want to make real  money. Investors can choose not to choose me, but relatively speaking, there is no other choices.

If people refuse to contact Weizhen Tang’s investment and resist Tang’s investment, I naturally can’t pay back the money.

Remember what Baidu’s encyclopedia says, we should not forget that:

I ,Weizhen Tang , won the Best Integrity Award of China’s Top Ten Financial Intelligence Persons in 2008, a “Chinese Warren  Buffett” declared by the media, successfully predicted and avoided the US subprime mortgage crisis, brought revolutionary influence to the Chinese investment community, is the world’s financial The field has the iconic “Chinese symbol” and is also a typical representative of wealthy Chinese in overseas Chinese.

毁誉是政治,是法律,也是生意和卑鄙手段 兼谈孟晚舟事件 Leave a Comment / Blogs / By admin

美国社会和西方国家善于利用法律手段,司法毁誉从中获利。

因为病毒疫情,美国为了打压中国,找到了一个毁坏中国声誉的大好机会,去年11月中国首先发现并控制了新冠病毒在中国的传播,美国总统川普为了竞选的目的,吸引眼球,打压中国和阻止中国的崛起,把病毒说成是中国病毒,武汉病毒,是中国政府和人们导致了世界的灾难,口口声声要追究中国的责任和赔偿。

 

为了打压中国科技和科技巨头的崛起,美国和激起盟友打压华为和中信,污蔑他们是中国政府的工具,危害美国和西方国家的安全,把华为的财务总监,华为掌舵任任正非的女儿,孟晚舟,指控违反美国对伊朗的制裁和欺诈。如果没有中国政府和华为的撑腰,孟晚舟就跟我一样成了诈骗犯,罪人。

 

美国上市公司京东CEO,刘强东,美国政府指控他性侵年轻漂亮女孩,让他隐姓埋名,辞去公司位置。如果不是财大气粗,早就进了美国的监狱,跟我一样成了罪犯。

 

唐炜臻从93年介入美国的股市,从零开始经过近二十年的摸爬滚打,从互惠基金,股票,期权,期货,外汇 发展了一套理论与系统,一路攀升成为举世瞩目的“华人巴菲特”,国际金融的“中国符号“。因为金融海啸,加拿大政府和司法部门把我当成美国和世界金融危机的替罪羊,剥夺我的一切和权力,把我打成罪犯,诈骗犯。竟然有人相信唐炜臻是一个骗子,不会投资,不会炒股票,没有市场赢利能力。一些刚刚进入市场,赚了点钱的投资人就变成了股神,大师,竟然有人相信,而对一个有几十年经验的人不闻不问,并认为有几十年经验的市场老人已经过时,没用了。 荒唐可笑,我有那多年的交易记录和法庭记录,有几个人花时间精力心思研究过。现在的人都没有头脑,从众的人多。我是毁誉的受害者,从一个股神变成了诈骗犯,进过监狱,坐过牢,有人说我的信誉已经破产了。他们从来没有想过我对他们的作用与意义,价值, 在复杂而变化的世界局势和环境中,正是发现人才,用人的时候,唐炜臻对投资人具有极大的作用和利益。

 

又回到华为事件举例说明, 最近消息,12月3日,有传言称美国司法部代表正和孟晚舟的辩护律师讨论以“延期起诉协议”(DPA)换取孟晚舟自由等问题。

同日,该传闻登上了《华尔街日报》等权威媒体,让两年来一直关注孟案的观察家们有点吃惊:孟氏真的会签这份协议吗?

 

来自美国的法律武

部分知情人士指出,孟晚舟目前反对建议,坚称自己并没有做错。中国驻加拿大使馆以及华为公司此后即分别发文,声援孟氏。强调“对孟晚舟的清白充满信心”。

这是情有可原的。12月3日的传言相当荒诞。孟晚舟和华为公司不可能接受DPA协议的性质。

DPA协议是美国司法部用于干预相关企业的有力手段,要求当事企业“承认并接受”美国监管部门的所有指控为事实(facts),“愿意承担责任”,还要配合美国司法部的所有调查。简言之,即不仅要认罪,还要听美国的话,如若美国司法部认为签约者不听话,则另有惩罚应对。

 

在孟案背后,是中美之间旷日持久的贸易战问

 

很显然,只为回国而签这种一边倒,承认败退的勒索协议,对于在公堂上激烈对峙两年的双方而言,既不存在前提,也不存在理由。更不用说孟晚舟本人甚至也是其他企业签了DPA协议之后的连带受害者。一个更荒诞的问题也随之呈现:是怎样一种情势让美国有了还能继续勒索孟晚舟,进而迫其认罪的勇气?

环顾美国政府的多年作为,外界应该能发现,以DPA干预大企业,使之配合调查并换取“不起诉协议”(NPA),是美国进入21世纪以来的新传统。

它最初发布于1999年6月16日,以要求支付巨额赔偿、配合调查、聘用第三方监管人以及向第三方团体捐款等手段为核心,借以约束“大规模企业犯罪”。在安然集团案、安必信会计师事务所等案后,该方式在21世纪后逐渐成为美国检察机关干预企业行为的有力工具。

对外界来说,美国对华为公司的打压似乎无法局限于DPANPA传统手段内

 

参与调查的美国检察官因此在调查大企业“犯罪”时得到了前所未有的权限。除去要求被告支付巨额罚款、赔偿金之外,还能深入企业组织内部,要求企业安排第三方监管人。在美国海外反腐败法(FCPA)配合下,美国司法部从2007年开始也找到了以长臂管辖等法律手段勒索、控制国内外大企业的利器。

在2014年6月,美国司法部及其曼哈顿联邦检察官办公室、美联储、美国财政部等多家机构,曾以签署书面认罪协议方式,从法国巴黎银行(BNP Paribus)处取得89.7亿美元巨额罚款。

华为与华盛顿的真正问题

对外界来说,孟晚舟案的起因,即牵涉“与伊朗交易”已经变得越来越模糊,其背后的阴谋反而越来越明晰,这与汇丰银行(HSBC)签署的DPA有关。

汇丰银行当年向孟晚舟索要的用以证明华为公司可靠性的企业秘密,最后竟被其上交给美国司法部

美国司法部于2012年曾以“协助墨西哥黑帮洗钱”为由,在被课以重罚后签署了一份为其五年的DPA。此后,汇丰在2016年末为“免于美国的刑事制裁”,便开始了“针对华为的内部调查”。

在2017年向美方上交了此前从华为公司取得的文件后,尽管美国司法部仍认为汇丰银行在依法合规这一点上“仍有很大缺陷”,但汇丰公司的DPA还是在2017年如约解除了。这背后发生的事情就令外界感慨不已。

从某种意义上来说,释放“孟晚舟认罪”之类的传言可能是行将完结的特朗普(Donald Trump)当局在2020年末的最后一搏,因为特朗普方面很希望向外界展示他从北京得到的好处,尽管中国、华为公司或者孟晚舟都不可能接受一份勒索协议,但外界只要能从中隐约感觉到一点中国的“让步”,这就多少能让美国国内舆论萌发一点信心。

 

唐炜臻准备重回金融阵地,为投资谋利益

专题: 为什么投资人赚钱要从美国股市的ETFs 开始 ,一个老投资人的成功经验

美国股市和金融市场就是一个大赌场,很多人都想在股市赚钱,赚大钱,快钱,就像在赌场赌博一样,当玩百家乐遇到长庄,有人赚到了大钱,一堆筹码摆在胸前,非常诱人,因此很多人就跟去了,现在美国股市就是一个长长的庄,我不跟庄,宁愿错过不后悔。我愿做空,死而无憾。几个月来我一直做空ETFs,逢高做空,我 做多时间和比例太少,尽管没怎么赚到钱,亏的也不多,但投资人不那么看,认为别人都在赚钱,你怎么会亏。因此否定我的每周1%的庄家思想与理论,神话。我的每周1%的庄家思想与理论是一种战略,庄家位置,而不是战术上一时一事和操盘技术,坚持就是胜利,我一定能够战胜市场,为投资人赚到钱,并且会做到连续稳定回报。

 

我在北美,在市场和法庭几十年的实践经验和教训,我将通过视频跟大家分享,都是免费的。我现在学习网络技术广泛传播,一定很受欢迎,我再不从事一个,几个投资人和小的资金做示范。 投资成功的关键是资金量。 资金量决定你的心态,杠杆比例和成功率。ETFS 是最理想的赢利工具,无论是长线还是短线。

 

时间:美加东部时间上午10

 

诚挚邀请你加入 唐炜臻的系列Zoom 视频会议

https://us04web.zoom.us/j/5520162796?pwd=NXV4eWYyNHR0aVhCMW1HZ2ZZcG03dz09

 

Meeting ID: 552 016 2796

Passcode: 4CGbRB

 

 

 

 

目前是金融市场最好的时候,也是最坏的时候

目前是金融市场最好的时候,也是最坏的时候

因为病毒疫情大家困在家炒股,对投资感兴趣,加之美国联邦储蓄局对市场灌水救市,股市一路飙升,到了危险的时候,对一个专业从业者来说是极大的机会,为什么说是最坏的时候,如果投资人只会做多,没有经历过大风大浪,熊市,很多人的钱会付诸东流。 一个投资人自己投资,损失是没有地方,怪罪的,如果我们帮助你投资,一旦有丝毫损失,你就会找各种理由,怪罪,愤怒,指控,投诉,威胁,敲诈。我理解投资人,非常愿意为投资人排忧解难,承担风险。 为什么投资人赚钱要从美国股市的ETFs 开始 ,一个老投资人的成功经验 美国股市和金融市场就是一个大赌场,很多人都想在股市赚钱,赚大钱,快钱,就像在赌场赌博一样,当玩百家乐遇到长庄,有人赚到了大钱,一堆筹码摆在胸前,非常诱人,因此很多人就跟去了,现在美国股市就是一个长长的庄,我不跟庄,宁愿错过不后悔。我愿做空,死而无憾。几个月来我一直做空ETFs,逢高做空,我 做多时间和比例太少,尽管没怎么赚到钱,亏的也不多,但投资人不那么看,认为别人都在赚钱,你怎么会亏。因此否定我的每周1%的庄家思想与理论,神话。我的每周1%的庄家思想与理论是一种战略,庄家位置,而不是战术上一时一事和操盘技术,坚持就是胜利,我一定能够战胜市场,为投资人赚到钱,并且会做到连续稳定回报。 我在北美,在市场和法庭几十年的实践经验和教训,我将通过视频跟大家分享,都是免费的。我现在学习网络技术广泛传播,一定很受欢迎,我再不从事一个,几个投资人和小的资金做示范。 投资成功的关键是资金量。 资金量决定你的心态,杠杆比例和成功率。ETFS 是最理想的赢利工具,无论是长线还是短线。

诚挚邀请你加入 唐炜臻的系列Zoom 视频会议 https://us04web.zoom.us/j/5520162796?…

Meeting ID: 552 016 2796 Passcode: 4CGbRB

 

The pandemic has changed people’s buying behaviour. If you’re looking to start a business or you’re a business owner but don’t have a strong social media presence, you could be eliminated like all the businesses that are closing down each day. If you have a business and it is not making money probably due to these 3 reasons: 1. You don’t have awareness and people can’t find you. If people can’t find you, they will not buy your products or services. 2. Even though people can find you, how do you convert those people who interested to buy your products or services? So, you will need to create a lot of exposure and turn it into leads and enquiries. 3. Many of you will think just pay for advertisement then you can generate sales. But if you missed the conversion sequence, you will not be able to turn the leads and enquiries to sales I would like to invite you to join my Social Media to a scheduled Zoom meeting. Topic: Weizhen Tang’s Zoom Meeting Time: This is a recurring meeting Meet anytime Join Zoom Meeting https://us04web.zoom.us/j/5520162796?… Meeting ID: 552 016 2796 Passcode: 4CGbRB

https://youtu.be/V58hZU2cR2k via @YouTube

第二届北美华人财富高峰论坛 Leave a Comment / Blogs / By admin 第二届北美华人财富高

峰论坛本周六举行 https://youtu.be/6_lD9jZ2wZY
2009-01-13 19:24:35
来源:星星生活
 

第二届北美华人财富高峰论坛将是一次极不寻常的具有历史意义的财富峰会,这次峰会由唐炜臻财富俱乐部联合全球化合作基金会和加中企业家协会即将于2009 年1月17日在多伦多会展中心隆重召开。峰会将有来自加拿大,美国和中国的中西金融界,学术界,投资界,企业界,政界,文化界,华人社团领袖和新闻媒体等 各界精英参加,已出票约400张,人数将在400到500人的规模,将是一次集多伦多华 人和主流社会精英于一堂的盛会。现在会议筹备进入最后阶段,各方还在踊跃报名,会场布置富丽堂皇。

 

*时空背景

这次高峰论坛是在2008年9月华尔街五大投行倒塌和二房破产引发全球金融海啸以来,世界金融和经济形势持续恶化的特殊时代背景下,在金融海啸的重镇北美和加拿大金融中心多伦多召开。

这次高峰论坛拟探讨如下问题:阐述国际经济形势;为海外华人投资界寻找出路;为中国提供金融危机的解决方案;为中国国际投资提供合理方案;整合海外华人金融管理和投资力量;为中国与北美华人金融投资界合作建立一定关系;加强海外华人与北美主流社会的金融投资合作,共同应对金融危机;凝聚共识,在海外华人和中国确立庄家思想,同时加强合作精神。

*演讲嘉宾和主题

全球化合作基金会主席,世界文化多样性组织主席和全球化论坛创始人孙放先生
演讲主题:全球化时代金融危机–一个时代的终结;

唐炜臻金融集团董事长,唐炜臻财富俱乐部主席和加中企业家协会理事长唐炜臻先生演讲主题:唐炜臻金融投资的庄家思想及其应用

国际著名经济学家,西安大略大学经济学终身教授徐滇庆先生
演讲主题:中国在金融危机中的挑战与机遇

国际著名金融投资专家,加拿大帝国商业银行(Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce)资金和风险管理部高级副总裁,2008年中国国际风险大会会议主席约翰帕迪森博士(Dr. John Pattison)
演讲主题:How to Manage Finances During the Financial Crisis and After

海外华人在西方相对于主流社会是散户,力量弱小,应该具有庄家思想,只有向庄家位置转移,向庄家转化,才能一步步强大,并最终确立不可动摇的地 位。海外华人向庄家位置转移,就要聚集海外华人的力量,包括人才,资金,知识与组织,利用系统化管理和思想文化形成一股凝聚力,从而增强实力储备。同时, 必须借助于母国:利用中国的资源,进行海内外互补,加强自身和中国的联系,才能更迅速地发展壮大,获得源源不断的支援,确立永续的优势地位。

第二届北美华人财富高峰论坛将是一次汇聚精英智慧,解剖时局,共商危机对策,共谋海外华人,中国及世界的发展与前途的历史性盛会,它将成为海外华人在新世纪发展的一块重要路标。 (唐炜臻财富俱乐部)

为什么投资人赚钱要从美国股市的ETFs 开始 ,一个老投资人的成功经验

为什么投资人赚钱要从美国股市的ETFs 开始 ,一个老投资人的成功经验

美国股市和金融市场就是一个大赌场,很多人都想在股市赚钱,赚大钱,快钱,就像在赌场赌博一样,当玩百家乐遇到长庄,有人赚到了大钱,一堆筹码摆在胸前,非常诱人,因此很多人就跟去了,现在美国股市就是一个长长的庄,我不跟庄,宁愿错过不后悔。我愿做空,死而无憾。几个月来我一直做空ETFs,逢高做空,我 做多时间和比例太少,尽管没怎么赚到钱,亏的也不多,但投资人不那么看,认为别人都在赚钱,你怎么会亏。因此否定我的每周1%的庄家思想与理论,神话。我的每周1%的庄家思想与理论是一种战略,庄家位置,而不是战术上一时一事和操盘技术,坚持就是胜利,我一定能够战胜市场,为投资人赚到钱,并且会做到连续稳定回报。

 

我在北美,在市场和法庭几十年的实践经验和教训,我将通过视频跟大家分享,都是免费的。我现在学习网络技术广泛传播,一定很受欢迎,我再不从事一个,几个投资人和小的资金做示范。 投资成功的关键是资金量。 资金量决定你的心态,杠杆比例和成功率。ETFS 是最理想的赢利工具,无论是长线还是短线。

时间: 2020 年 11月 29日,星期六美加东部时间下午 4点

 

诚挚邀请你加入 唐炜臻的系列Zoom 视频会议

https://us04web.zoom.us/j/5520162796?pwd=NXV4eWYyNHR0aVhCMW1HZ2ZZcG03dz09

 

Meeting ID: 552 016 2796

华人巴菲特常规视频会议通知:研讨投资,财富和司法

华人巴菲特常规视频会议通知

 

今天是美国的感恩节后的半天交易日,市场提前关门,东部时间下午一点休市

 

唐炜臻,荣获2008年中华十大财智人物最佳诚信奖,一位被媒体宣称的“华人巴菲特”,成功预测美国房地产经济危机, 给华人投资界带来了革命性的影响,是世界金融领域具有标志性的“中国符号”,也是海外华人中财智人物的典型代表。

 

唐炜臻不但对北美的金融,商业十分精通,而且对北美的司法,政治也有深入的了解,研究和实践

金融,几十年坚持不懈跟市场斗,莫把滚打,反诈骗,为投资人追求连续稳定回报,为投资人提出每周1% 的数量化的庄家 论理论和实践,对投资人和媒体公开演示操盘,史无前例,这种毅力与勇气,凭个人的声誉,人品,市场经验与技巧,3年融资6千万美元,在金融 海啸中能做到没有市场亏损,为投资人躲过一场世纪浩劫,管理资金灵活机动,投资人自由出入,无论亏损和赢利保持投资人的盈利水平和利益,主动为承担风险,你想想,这是什么思想,精神与境界,为什么会造成天大误会,被攻击的目标。

商业奇才: 加拿大华人春节联欢晚会震撼多伦多,财富峰会让人留恋不已,赞不绝口,地位是独占鳌头.

公益与慈善事业,一马当先,不顾自己和自己的生意上的安危,有救必应,一个毫不利己专门利人的人,愿意帮人的人,实属少见.

司法: 十多年的司法经验,大案重案在身,不卑不亢,临危不惧,以一对几十个大律师和法官,个人对强大的西方政府专政机器几年,近十年,  唐炜臻:试与权利机构一争高低

 

大家一起讨论和交流北美的投资经验和生财之道,如何才能从今天的市场赚到钱。 唐炜臻邀请大家通过视频讨论投资人和海外华人最关心的问题,财富与法制.

 

专题:  唐炜臻与投资人交流北美的投资经验和生财之道,如何才能从市场赚到钱,追求连续稳定回报,唐炜臻如何使投资人如何成为百万,千万,亿万富翁

话题包括:

  1. 目前美国的市场,如何应对,避免风险,得到连续稳定回报
  2. 北美的金融市场与庞氏骗局,拆东墙补西墙
  3. 唐炜臻每周1% 理论与实践的作用与意义,为什么公众和投资人误解与权利机关对唐炜臻的攻击与阻难
  4. 加拿大与西方法制的本质与对策,如何轻松应对司法,避免家庭悲剧
  5. 加拿大为什么说是犯罪天堂,唐炜臻真的犯罪了吗
  6. 海外华人如何发展壮大,北美的机会与挑战
  7. 唐炜臻如何使投资人如何成为百万,千万,亿万富翁,真的假的
  8. 唐炜臻如何集资金与人才于一体,成为北美华人金融中心,发挥集体力量和优势

 

 

时间: 2020 年 11月 27日,每个周末星期六和星期美加东部时间下午 2点

 

诚挚邀请你加入 唐炜臻的系列Zoom 视频会议

https://us04web.zoom.us/j/5520162796?pwd=NXV4eWYyNHR0aVhCMW1HZ2ZZcG03dz09

 

Meeting ID: 552 016 2796

Passcode: 4CGbRB

 

唐炜臻视频将在视频网站转播

 

网站: http:www.weizhentang.today

电话: 4168868715

电子邮件:weizhentang@gmail.com

 

 

唐炜臻到底是华人巴菲特还是华人马道夫?

2唐炜臻 2010-12-06 09:29
 
作为一个新移民来到北美,闯入金融领域,做起了生意,经营十多年,有起有伏。成功了人们说我是华人巴菲特,但有人不信也不服,说巴菲特是价值型长线投资,世界首富,身价400-500个亿,唐炜臻是短线投机,不是华人首富(只是想做华人首富),自己连1个亿都没有,肯定不是华人巴菲特。
 
事业失败了人们说我是华人马道夫,马道夫是诈骗,没有拿客户的钱在市场投资,直接偷走,价值500亿,家财万贯,过着奢侈豪华的生活,而唐炜臻融资几千万,用客户的钱为客户投资,因为2008年巨大的市场海啸,融资的速度低不过取款,表演名义上每周1% ,其实要100% 不理想,导致挤兑,把每一分钱都挤出来给客户,还用自己赖以生存的唯一一套房屋抵押为投资人尽心尽力。
 
唐炜臻市场投资损失才一千多万,不是偷走500 个亿美元,所以根本不是华人马道夫。
 
华人巴菲特不是我自己封的,华人马道夫更不是我要的。唐炜臻不是华人巴菲特,也不是华人马道夫,目前唐炜臻因为全球金融市场和大经济的原因回天无力,辜负了投资人的信任,给投资人极大的打击和伤害,唐炜臻从道德和资金上已经是负债累累,现在有人说唐炜臻是唐纳德?特朗普,一个商业奇人,通过自己的书,电影电视和媒体的基本功夫和素质,能够灵活运用媒体的力量将从人生和生意的低谷绝地崛起,象唐纳德?特朗普一样,不按常规出牌,不怕风险,一生起伏跌宕。唐纳德。 特朗普(Donald Trump)在他人生最低谷的时候,债务高筑,总是能在失败中认真总结经验教训,面对现实,展望未来,写出人们喜爱的畅销书,把自己的事业推动起来,他总能把坏事变好事,一次又一次东山再起。也有人说唐炜臻可能是媒体大亨,亿万富豪莫道克,对媒体和媒体生意有一定的天赋和兴趣,在市场和媒体炒作得心应手,连续三届轰动海内外的华人春节联欢晚会,财富峰会和413万人集会是他的社会化,市场化,商业化运作的结果,充分体现极高的社会和市场能力,是唐炜臻独特的思维方式和思想而不是马道夫的金钱就可以做到的,可能做媒体生意赚大钱。
 
以前也有人说过唐炜臻象伟大领袖毛泽东,大公无私,有远大的理想,领袖风范,气质和雄才胆略和魄力,要带领海外华人走资本主义道理,财富之路,做经济领袖。总之,唐炜臻是个历史性人物,创造过很多海外华人的历史,为海外华人和加拿大经济作出巨大贡献,具有世界最顶级人物的天赋,特征,能力和共同之处,其实,唐炜臻就是唐炜臻,人冒进一些,人品还是好的,心地善良,从没有害人之心,从不推卸法律责任,主动承担道德责任,有抗压性,压不垮,推不倒,目前正在面临严峻的考验,要创造海外华人的又一历史,面对一个陌生的世界和社会,面对各种压力和障碍要团结一切可以团结的力量,利用一切积极因素,将奇迹般地杀出一条血路来为投资人夺回损失,从市场赚钱还给投资人,成为世界上最富有的人之一。
马道夫的生意是庞兹骗局,唐炜臻的生意是金融投资
 
金融骗人需要跟政府好好注册,注册好骗人。 马道夫是前任纳斯达克主席,证券交易管理委員会主席考克斯的朋友。马道夫通过证券会注册的对冲基金进行诈骗,通常金融诈骗会利用监管部门的无效和失灵做掩护,主动跟证券会注册,就会天衣无缝,例如马道夫一个真正的诈骗犯认识证券机构所有的人就是最好的例证。马道夫是彻头彻尾的庞兹骗局,目的是偷,把投资人的钱据为己有,没有投资和正常的商业运作,手段是把新客户的钱付给老客户作为回报,从来不需要也不想要在市场里投资或者其他商业运作,不会负责投资人的损失,只有不知道从市场赚钱的人,不能从市场赚钱的人,或者明知从市场不能赚钱的人,才采取诈骗的方式与手段,只有源源不断的新客户加入才能维持庞兹骗局的运作,庞兹骗局是一种从本质上就极坏,把投资人的资金据为己有为目的恶劣的商业运作方式。庞兹运作方式在金融机构非常普遍,几乎所有的金融机构都运用庞兹,暂时地用新的资金转手付给取钱的客户,特别是国家养老,退休基金,保险和银行,包括美国和国家中央银行都是,但因为不是据为己有而作为正常手段和运作被大众和市场广泛接受,而我是个人和一个华人受到证券监管部门和主流媒体的轻视和歧视才被指责和嫌疑很不公平。
 
2008年的金融海啸,山崩地裂,让所有的金融机构和庞兹方式面临灭顶之灾,特别是美国的银行和保险公司纷纷倒闭,让投资人损失极端惨重,无数万个亿美元化为乌有,这次的金融海啸损失了一两代投资人和他们多年积累的财富,同时标志美国“庞茲骗局”时代的结束。而唐炜臻是一位资深投资人,投资人财富的捍卫者,跟投资人利益完全一致,世界上最负责任的高级基金管理人,唐炜臻的投资和运作在市场非常严峻的情况下,总的资金损失相对其他金融机构,基金公司,银行和个人而言是微不足道,多少个华尔街百年老店损失上千亿,2008年的金融危机还逼死了德国亿万富翁。唐炜臻几年来总融资6000万,总的市场损失1500万,比例只有25%,损失比同行和投资人自己投资少得多,表现高得多,海外华人基金运作采取秘密不公开方式,所有损失唐炜臻负责,不需要隐瞒投资损失。唐炜臻仅在2008年还融资3000万美元抵抗这巨大海啸取走的近3000万美元,避免了风险和极大的市场损失,在这样的一年里还能融资这么大,并且已经做到没有市场损失,实在不容易,只是因为跟承诺的和客户期望的相差巨大,客户不能理解和接受,没有市场损失投资人不喜反而不满,没有集体思想和观念,商业运作知识,完全可以理解。如果没有2008这么巨大的金融海啸和个别聪明投资人的人为干扰,唐炜臻完全可能融资上亿或者数亿美元,成功站在机构与大户的位置从市场上连续稳定盈利,为所有的投资人带来利益,唐炜臻在市场就会一举定乾坤,独占鳌头。唐炜臻通过独特的思维方式,庄家思想,极高的市场方式和手段,每周1%的理论与实践,在市场投资和演示吸引投资,经验非常丰富,一时的挫折和暂时的损失,千万不能误把好人当坏人一棍子打死,断了自己和别人的后路。唐炜臻金融投资有坚实的理论基础,长期丰富的市场经验和出色的市场交易记录,为加拿大市场经济和金融事业做出了巨大贡献,十几年交易从没有间断,涉及股票,债券,期货,期权和外汇等,每年交易佣金巨大,十多年总额可能达数千万,为加拿大创造了巨大的财富和无数的工作机会。根据唐炜臻自己的经验与悟性,唐炜臻金融投资到了历史性的转折点,正在朝着每周1% 连续稳定回报和确定庄家巨无霸的位置。
庞兹骗局一旦发现就告终
庞兹骗局一旦发现就告结束和终止,不能狡辩,也不可能狡辩,非法经营没有任何东山再起的机会和能力,所以必须认罪,按法律程序办。我们是生意受到挫折和失败,就像唐纳德?特朗普一样总结经验教训,把问题摆在桌面上,让大家一起想办法还可以再来。唐炜臻一开始就没有欺诈的意思和企图,一心一意要为投资人谋利益,做大事,是金融投资不是诈骗所以有必要说明和辩护,为投资人的利益着想,不能伴随庞兹骗局完了,谁来负责投资人的几千万呢?唐炜臻投资人的亏损有部分是市场正常亏损,大多数是承诺的盈利还没有实现,真正血本无归的并不多,而所有的亏损都是可以弥补的,我是一个理想主义和现实主义交替,不是有机结合很好的人,由于给自己高标准严要求,要让每一个投资人都满意,所以,给自己添了天大的麻烦和闹出天大的笑话和投资人的不满。从表面和现象上看,90%以上的人并没有任何生意头脑和庞兹骗局等法律知识和常识,误认为我是庞兹骗局,所以,投资人,媒体,证券会,警察局和律师根据现象都自然而然地往这方面去想和套,错误的思维和舆论导向给我和我的生意造成了极大的障碍,让投资人最后的希望几乎破灭,给投资人带来又一严重的打击,让投资人失望,甚至绝望。我们今后一定是正当,光明正大,公开透明的生意,不可能骗任何人,当一个毫无利益和特长的局外人来插手大家的投资的时候,或者生意一旦投资人自己插手,群龙无首的时候,或者突然出现一个没有思想和经验的别有用心的人的时候,更严重的是政府机构介入的时候,对生意的正常运转就会有害无益,一定出事,好生意也可以砸了,除非遇上真正的庞兹骗局犯罪行为必须政府部门的介入,打击犯罪的时候也会误伤好人。就像夫妻争吵,一方报警,从此家庭矛盾升级,再无宁日,司法程序完成后家庭彻底破裂。面对200 左右暂时受损失的投资人,任何一位失去理智就可以让大家都受到伤害,累及他人。个别人恨的是我,伤害的是大家和大家的利益。证券会对唐炜臻客户没有任何帮助,它们过去没有保护投资人,今天不能保护投资人,今后,仍然不能保护投资人,不是投资人的保护伞,它们只是一个注册机构,登记处,调查机构,不是为投资人盈利的机构,一旦投资人找错地方,只有使投资人的钱越来越少,不会越来越多,它们并不负责投资人的盈亏,不促进企业发展,而是打击犯罪行为,阻止进一步有人犯罪。证券会仅凭个别投资人一言之词,冒然冻结我们海外华人合伙人基金账户和唐炜臻公司账户是极不负责任的态度,停止唐炜臻证券合理合法交易是一个错误的决定,严重影响唐炜臻投资人和公众的利益。证券会不顾200人的意愿,极大的利益和要求,不评估,只根据个别人的要求就横加干预和强行管制,可以想象一个无利,无能,无风险,无知的人对任何公司和个人的调查都会干扰和阻碍正常的商业运作,起破坏作用,伤害无辜。
唐炜臻不是华人巴菲特,也不是华人马道夫,目前最可能是唐纳德.特朗普
华人巴菲特是最高的荣誉,华人马道夫是最坏的恶名,唐纳德?特朗普是一个能从巨大债务压力下,从90亿美元债务的沉重包袱和司法中翻身的商业上传奇人物,唐炜臻也许可以效仿。唐炜臻除了从事金融事业,有丰富的经验以外,也著有自己的书,积累了丰富的文字资料和财富,即将风行全球,同时有很多演讲,视屏资料和财富,更重要的组织和举办的各种社会活动具有非常大的号召力和影响力,是先进的思维方式和市场经验的充分体现。媒体的运用更是得心应手是唐炜臻未来起死回生的有力武器和保证。要成为世界上最富有的人之一必须是世界最有名的和最有钱的。有名就会有钱,当然是好的名声,唐炜臻极端注重自己的名声,有钱就会有名,唐炜臻离世界上最有名的人已经很近,具有独特的思维方式,思想观念,投资和市场能力,成为最富有的人还有多远?

 

唐炜臻在美国金融市场多次大危机中的表现和成功经验

我的近三十年在北美的投资生涯,经历了很多次金融危机和风暴,甚至金融海啸和新冠疫情,它们是1997年亚洲金融风暴,2000年的网络泡沫,2008年的房地产次贷危机和海啸,今年的新冠疫情市场崩溃。亚洲金融危机,我们买卖互惠基金最多亏了8%。投资人就开会,批斗大会,回来几个月我把投资人的钱从互惠基金赚回来才平息一个小的风波,还有一个投资股票的投资人到政府监管部门IDA投诉给我们造成极大的伤害,经济和名誉都受到损失 。第二次,2000年的年初纳斯达克指数崩溃,从6000点到1000点,我们最多亏了20% ,也发生了矛盾和争执,因为来去自由投资人很快就跑了,我们的亏损是最少的,在纳斯达克泡沫发生发展中我们赚了几倍。再就是2008年的金融海啸,因为有了以前的经验我的主要工作和任务是避免风险,融资准备赚大钱,一年融资数千万美元,准备市场见底以后大举进攻,2009年3月等到了市场底部,投资的最佳时机,不幸因为投资人的焦虑不安,挤兑,导致一时的资金,暂时的资金短缺,个别投资人投诉,投资人的律师到了证券会,给了证券会一个可乘之机,把一个知名度极高的北美著名的华人金融企业家打倒。因为不懂法律和法律程序,名誉被毁,交易停止,导致投资人的损失,投资人对我不满,产生愤怒,以为是我欺骗了他们,钱拿不回来了。其实我是真心长期的设计,保护投资人,投资人的钱是不会亏的,都会回来,特别是现在,我浑身是力量,有金融和司法的双翅膀,有西方社会的双重保护和盈利工具。没有人和机构可以阻止我们前进的步伐,成为世界上最富有的人之一。夺回损失,还投资人的钱只是小事一桩。没有任何人和投资比投资我们,我们投资更安全。今年的疫情我们不但没有损失,还通过3倍指数基金ETFs,几个月翻几倍。现在我们的投资人的钱在自己的账户,安全可靠谁也不能从投资自己的帐上抢钱。

America’s Role in China ‘s Human Rights

America has been a seemingly very promising and prominent country, but it has stopped and is no longer the most powerful country since WWII. They have been the country of the Free World, and have been one of the most powerful leaders in the World’s history. Although America has won most of their wars, and created one of the powerful nations during the four US administrations, their power is subject to be skeptical. They have not been the strongest and a model country, because the way USA policy is detrimental and unstable with how their country turns out to be, when looked upon critically over the three US administrations after World War

  1. How America’s criticism of China’s Communism has directly affected China’s human rights and development and stopped international development and human rights. I will argue that the US critique from assumptions that America is universally the best nation in the world, rather than being a culturally unique and ideal country for the West. Countries do not grow as a state the same way, then why does America model itself as the ideal standard. I will look directly into the relationship of China after the Second World War, while being thorough with Cultural relativism argues that America’s culture and assumptions are relative, not widely-accepted, in the years following the Second World War. I will show how America’s own perceived information regarding the conditions of China, can lead to impulsive short sighted decisions that affect important aspects in China’s human rights and development.

In my argument, I will be talking about how it is detrimental to make the assumptions that America has made for China throughout the 2nd World War. By how assumptions have created a critical barrier to stop and created determinants towards human rights and the existence of Chinese citizens. I will be looking directly into arguments such as, China has no GDP, because they refuse to accept Western ideal of critiques. I will also look into the assumption that

 

because China is communist, their policy is directly detrimental to Chinese citizens. I acknowledge that this is how the twenty-first century turned out, but I am arguing that if America did not have this kind of critique, America would not need to deal with China in both the 2nd World War and the Korean War. This was due to America’s perception of China and how Communism was a bad governmental policy for a country. I will critically analyze using a cultural relativist perspective, as to the flaws with the way that America has chosen to win “their” wars. My argument is based upon the circumstances and the situations that China has been put under when they were considered a new country. This is critical because there was no political uprising from the creation of the People Republic of China. I will argue a more in depth analysis about the circumstances after World War II and philosophical theories that may have contributed to the construction of China and how America’s quick assumptions and demonization have created issues for structural progression, even in regards to human rights.

As human rights is an issue for many countries, the basis of continual human rights is in the United Nations Declaration of Human rights. The United Nations human rights are defined as rights given to everyone, because they are human (Universal Human Rights, 1998). For the sake of this argument, I will be arguing that certain rights, which are given without discrimination, are being denied because a country’s status and support is not fulfilled and thus causing issues towards building a secure and stable economy. I will be arguing in relationship to China-

American relationship and how denial of support due to the fact that America has an

 

anti-Communist policy at the time, greatly affecting China’s ability to rebuild itself as a country, after the Second World War.

Cultural Relativism

 

Cultural relativism is an important aspect towards understanding this relationship between China and America. I am not arguing that Cultural relativism is the absolute criteria for any other country, but a more expanded criteria to understand the circumstances of China, following the Second World War. America, as a Western nation, took part and won World War II, making it a country who is superior to the East or Asian countries. Cultural relativism is defined as having norms and realities that exist subjected to a certain culture, and by which there are no universal norms that people are held to (Beghramin, 2015). For the sake of this argument, I am assuming that there is a certain degree of understanding for a culture, to judge another country based on their own subjective criteria. It is immoral, but has held and stopped international affairs with China. I acknowledge that there are certain universal morals, but I will be evaluating them based on the circumstances of how China dealt with communism and their basis of subjective and societal morals are more cultural relative and bound.

Historical Overview

 

America, during Eisenhower’s administration, was trying to recover from the Second World War. At this time, their political views were swayed to secure that Communism would not create America’s perspectives. Eisenhower initially stated that he would not sign or endorse a multinational human rights treaty (Donnelly, 2017, 366). Furthermore, this is what led to how the Bricker Amendment that stopped the Americans from taking up civil and political human rights or foreign influence (Kaufman, et al. 1988, 309). The main issue of both Communism in international affairs and preventing the basic human rights in the American congress was because of the Bricker Amendment (Donnelly, 2017, 366). The Bricker Amendment was considered to deter from what Americans viewed as “back-door Communism”(Kaufman, et al.

1988, 310).The self-proclaimed leader of the free world was acting as if human rights concerns

 

were undermined by the attack of Communism from the Soviet Russia (2017). For America, it was seemingly that to be anti-communist and anti-human rights and anti-international influence was subjected.

America’s room for anti-Communism is clear throughout the information provided.

 

America’s perspective for this kind of thinking has been demonized since the First World War. Communism/Socialism is a bad ideology and using it on a political level will never progress a country, while suspecting those Communist perspectives (W. H. D. R, 1948, 440). My perspective is not that Communism is the best approach to creating a country, my concern is when you put all proposed legislation and propositions, in a Federal senate, to a demonized Communist ideal just too legally and unanimously dismiss it.

China was more of a country trying to create good profit, although China was solely based upon a Communist margin, there were logical issues that constrained China due to a constant civil war that enveloped a country. While China was confronted with a civil war that desecrated the country, with constant civil war for power between countries, they still had to fight in the new World War, the second. I am not saying that these restrains or cultural relativism are any excuse to allow China to do whatever they wanted, but this is what Chairman Mao thought was right, in the given context, and by creating distant relationships with America greatly affected how China grew as a country (Pauly, 2012, 829). As China faced its greatest challenges as a nation, unsure whether they were to assert a Communism country, based upon many drastically different politics that enveloped China during the end of the Kuomintang Government, played a significant role in how China was to be rebuilt (Hookham, 1979, 170).

The wars that happened after the Kuomintang government was mainly because of two ideological giants that existed (Anstey, 1987, 316). The Communist Party of China was more of

 

a balance between the Russian and the America’s ideologies. With China having their own civil war of many different politics, Japanese people sat back and invaded China many times to gain power over China or at least assert a better relationship directly with the Chinese government (Civil War in China, 1924, 527). It was only then, that the constant struggle for a nation, China, became an issue for American politics.

With China under drastic disarray, due to the Kuomintang government, Peking government, Chairman Mao’s new Communism, Japanese people, and even the people uprising and using coup d’état as a way for Capitalist revolutions, China was certainly bound and constant civil war to a degree that is unimaginable (1924). America used this communist idea, their own perceived idea of Communism, that influenced countries like China and Russia’s ideal, and believed it would take over their country (Kaufman, 1988, 310). For America, Communism ideals were distraught and only could harm the country, even though China and Russia as a state have both succeeded through civil war.

In China’s defense against the use of America’s anti-Communism, I would argue Maslow’ Hierarchy of Needs would be relevant for the development of China without American influence of anti-Communism, as to why Cultural relativism is relevant to the evaluation of China’s crisis (Johns, 2017). I am not saying that China did everything right and ethically correct, but due to Nixon’s presidential system and international affairs, that was China’s only option. I would argue being able to build a country in relevance with the Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is based upon a socio-psychology that defines the satisfaction of moving up the ladder of growth in an individual. The layers of the pyramid begins with Psychological – the sleep, rest, food, water, and basic needs that are required for a human being. The next layer is security- whether an individual has the safety, security, money and

 

personal wellness are evaluated at this level of satisfaction. The layer above is love and belonging, the sense of having relationships and how they impact a person. As a country, I can expand these relationships to the state level, because it impacts how a state is going to build itself when it has these levels satisfied. China was not going to take any understanding from Americans, especially when their policy is anti-Communism and their presidents were very

anti-Communist. This is why a heavier evaluation is required to understand a nation that is completely different from America. China was still building its own ability to supply water, food, basic security for their citizens.

To assume that a certain political structure was enough to be a part of the international community is irrelevant. Assuming to disregard China as an insufficient nation is like saying that to judge another person’s ability, disregarding the context of how they are, and the situation they were in to be politically capable is not an appropriate criteria. America’s assumptions and judgements can be equivalent to saying that they can hate other nations just because of what they think they believe. Let us assume a hypothetical, looking at Freedom of Speech. Let us also assume three different people. Two people at the national airport terminal. He is with his colleague chatting about an issue at work. The third person would sit back and listen to their conversation, named Bob. The two people who are chatting ends up saying a derogatory comment, such as slavery, homophobic, racist or cynical. The only other problem would be that Bob only heard the derogatory comment and nothing else in the conversation. Yet, Bob acts on this cynical ideology and tells a Terminal Special officer about it. To be able to act on this without situation or context would make any conversation very cynical. To think that because you had this idea of a person, because of a comment he said, without context or situation of the conversation, and to act upon this and tell an official because of what Bob thinks, is what is

 

cynical. My point is not that we should not repress phobic language, but without understanding why they talk about it or the context in which they are talking about is toxic. This scenario would be similar to America making assumptions based entirely because of the fact that China has declared itself to be Communist country. China certainly endured many political opinions and was only building itself to be able to handle the growing economy and globalization.

China already resisted the capitalist theory, Japanese rule, Chinese dynasties rule, and

 

far-right wing thinkers. China has already been brought back down to the bare minimum of what they had, due to all this fighting and a coup d’état, and whether it was sure going to be successful because of a communist ideal. For China to be able to develop a country to prosper so they can be concerned with other issues would be relevant to Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. China also went through a famine for a segment of time, where even the basic levels of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs were affected (Johns, 2017). Therefore, having an understanding over a more thorough understanding of the issues that countries have had to deal with, which was cultural relativism and understanding why this was a problem. I am not saying that Cultural Relativism is an excuse for China’s actions and human rights violations, but when America begins to ignore another country based on what they think to be the conclusion of their political view and disregard them as so, which creates foundations for political and civil human rights violations.

How America created issues for China’s human rights. (Argument) In contemporary China, China was already having a war for what is now called People’s Republic of China. Despite all these attacks on China’s land to occupy, there were many distinct political changes. China was trying to change from a democratic to a communist ideological country, due to the change in government and the civil wars that were led from Japan after the First World War (Donnelly, 2007). At the same time, America was giving Turkey and Greece financial aid,

 

although they both have had civil wars that changed their respective governments (Merrill, 2006, 32). After the Tiananmen Square incident, China was evidently in killing their citizens, but America themselves stopped financial support for China’s actions (Donnelly, 2007). American initially stopped their funding, due to China’s action in the Tiananmen Square incident, but it was evident that it was also because China was communist. Greece and Turkey stayed away from a communist government rule, but America was still giving funding to China with Greece and Turkey. I am not saying that because America’s direct financial funding has affected China’s human rights, but it certainly played a role in denying China’s ability to build their country, then form proper policies for ensuring human rights. In relationship with Maslow’s Hierarchy, if a country cannot have food, water, or the basic security as a nation, they cannot build on aspects for self-actualizing and optimal qualities. Self-actualizing as in securing the demands of other nations’ through the United Nations councils, for example the human rights that grant every person in a state political, social and financial rights. Although human rights in China was a violation in 1949, the constant struggle trying to change ideologies after a civil war is evident in holding a country back from building a nation functional with human rights (2007). I am not arguing to excuse China for any of the atrocities committed, but if America was consistent with their support with nations, then there could have been better foreign relationships and negotiations to help build China’s human rights platforms. America and being one of the permanent members of the United Nations does play a big role in decision making towards China and building from its ideological and civil war (2007).

For the uses of Cultural relativism, it would change how America is looked at, as being the highest standard of morals (Kaufman et al. 1988, 309). America is using a universalism approach to critique China’s morals based upon what they believe are justified. This is why

 

America should have judged China’s actions on a more cultural relativist approach, rather than denying proper relationships based on what China says is Communism. I am not saying that cultural relativism is the greatest philosophical theory, I am arguing that China would be analyzed with a more understanding approach.

In the Asian values argument, Donnelly talks about how cultural relativism arguments are contingent and consistent to their specific cultures. He argues how the cultural relativist approach is inconsistent with their Asian values argument. He argues cultures have always changed and configured itself to what is relevant to current day societies, for example democracy and adequate governments. He argues that if Asians do something different back in the day, that Asians do not wish to change that they do now (Donnelly, 2007, 163).

My Asian values’ argument is not that cultures and human rights abuses are excused because they are of different cultures. My argument is that cultures can judge themselves, due to understanding of context and situation that culture is dealing with, rather than having other countries judge them based on universalistic approach. By having a West meets East argument of critiquing and judging each other’s leaders on the decisions they make, they make West look like the moral and cultural superior ones. Since Western countries think that Communism has affected them detrimentally. America’s universalism approach to Communism is a human rights’ hazard. My argument is more formulated on the premise that countries should be able to judge themselves, because they understand the situation, circumstance and how they are, rather than having countries use a Universalist approach to judge each other, disregarding a country’s critical problem. Because of Communism, America saw a need to contain it and ward against it. Cultural relativism is not excusing China for human rights violations, it is expanding America’s ability to critique and make judgements based on their perspectives.

 

In conclusion, I have looked at America’s perspective of anti-Communism, how

 

anti-communism was created and how taking a more cultural relativist perspective can change their analysis of China. Although these strained perspectives of anti-Communism began in the First World War, by keeping a universalistic perspective have harmed the progression to China’s human rights.

America has been a seemingly very promising and prominent country, but it has stopped and is no longer the most powerful country since WWII. They have been the country of the Free World, and have been one of the most powerful leaders in the World’s history. Although America has won most of their wars, and created one of the powerful nations during the four US administrations, their power is subject to be skeptical. They have not been the strongest and a model country, because the way USA policy is detrimental and unstable with how their country turns out to be, when looked upon critically over the three US administrations after World War

  1. How America’s criticism of China’s Communism has directly affected China’s human rights and development and stopped international development and human rights. I will argue that the US critique from assumptions that America is universally the best nation in the world, rather than being a culturally unique and ideal country for the West. Countries do not grow as a state the same way, then why does America model itself as the ideal standard. I will look directly into the relationship of China after the Second World War, while being thorough with Cultural relativism argues that America’s culture and assumptions are relative, not widely-accepted, in the years following the Second World War. I will show how America’s own perceived information regarding the conditions of China, can lead to impulsive short sighted decisions that affect important aspects in China’s human rights and development.

In my argument, I will be talking about how it is detrimental to make the assumptions that America has made for China throughout the 2nd World War. By how assumptions have created a critical barrier to stop and created determinants towards human rights and the existence of Chinese citizens. I will be looking directly into arguments such as, China has no GDP, because they refuse to accept Western ideal of critiques. I will also look into the assumption that

 

because China is communist, their policy is directly detrimental to Chinese citizens. I acknowledge that this is how the twenty-first century turned out, but I am arguing that if America did not have this kind of critique, America would not need to deal with China in both the 2nd World War and the Korean War. This was due to America’s perception of China and how Communism was a bad governmental policy for a country. I will critically analyze using a cultural relativist perspective, as to the flaws with the way that America has chosen to win “their” wars. My argument is based upon the circumstances and the situations that China has been put under when they were considered a new country. This is critical because there was no political uprising from the creation of the People Republic of China. I will argue a more in depth analysis about the circumstances after World War II and philosophical theories that may have contributed to the construction of China and how America’s quick assumptions and demonization have created issues for structural progression, even in regards to human rights.

As human rights is an issue for many countries, the basis of continual human rights is in the United Nations Declaration of Human rights. The United Nations human rights are defined as rights given to everyone, because they are human (Universal Human Rights, 1998). For the sake of this argument, I will be arguing that certain rights, which are given without discrimination, are being denied because a country’s status and support is not fulfilled and thus causing issues towards building a secure and stable economy. I will be arguing in relationship to China-

American relationship and how denial of support due to the fact that America has an

 

anti-Communist policy at the time, greatly affecting China’s ability to rebuild itself as a country, after the Second World War.

Cultural Relativism

 

Cultural relativism is an important aspect towards understanding this relationship between China and America. I am not arguing that Cultural relativism is the absolute criteria for any other country, but a more expanded criteria to understand the circumstances of China, following the Second World War. America, as a Western nation, took part and won World War II, making it a country who is superior to the East or Asian countries. Cultural relativism is defined as having norms and realities that exist subjected to a certain culture, and by which there are no universal norms that people are held to (Beghramin, 2015). For the sake of this argument, I am assuming that there is a certain degree of understanding for a culture, to judge another country based on their own subjective criteria. It is immoral, but has held and stopped international affairs with China. I acknowledge that there are certain universal morals, but I will be evaluating them based on the circumstances of how China dealt with communism and their basis of subjective and societal morals are more cultural relative and bound.

Historical Overview

 

America, during Eisenhower’s administration, was trying to recover from the Second World War. At this time, their political views were swayed to secure that Communism would not create America’s perspectives. Eisenhower initially stated that he would not sign or endorse a multinational human rights treaty (Donnelly, 2017, 366). Furthermore, this is what led to how the Bricker Amendment that stopped the Americans from taking up civil and political human rights or foreign influence (Kaufman, et al. 1988, 309). The main issue of both Communism in international affairs and preventing the basic human rights in the American congress was because of the Bricker Amendment (Donnelly, 2017, 366). The Bricker Amendment was considered to deter from what Americans viewed as “back-door Communism”(Kaufman, et al.

1988, 310).The self-proclaimed leader of the free world was acting as if human rights concerns

 

were undermined by the attack of Communism from the Soviet Russia (2017). For America, it was seemingly that to be anti-communist and anti-human rights and anti-international influence was subjected.

America’s room for anti-Communism is clear throughout the information provided.

 

America’s perspective for this kind of thinking has been demonized since the First World War. Communism/Socialism is a bad ideology and using it on a political level will never progress a country, while suspecting those Communist perspectives (W. H. D. R, 1948, 440). My perspective is not that Communism is the best approach to creating a country, my concern is when you put all proposed legislation and propositions, in a Federal senate, to a demonized Communist ideal just too legally and unanimously dismiss it.

China was more of a country trying to create good profit, although China was solely based upon a Communist margin, there were logical issues that constrained China due to a constant civil war that enveloped a country. While China was confronted with a civil war that desecrated the country, with constant civil war for power between countries, they still had to fight in the new World War, the second. I am not saying that these restrains or cultural relativism are any excuse to allow China to do whatever they wanted, but this is what Chairman Mao thought was right, in the given context, and by creating distant relationships with America greatly affected how China grew as a country (Pauly, 2012, 829). As China faced its greatest challenges as a nation, unsure whether they were to assert a Communism country, based upon many drastically different politics that enveloped China during the end of the Kuomintang Government, played a significant role in how China was to be rebuilt (Hookham, 1979, 170).

The wars that happened after the Kuomintang government was mainly because of two ideological giants that existed (Anstey, 1987, 316). The Communist Party of China was more of

 

a balance between the Russian and the America’s ideologies. With China having their own civil war of many different politics, Japanese people sat back and invaded China many times to gain power over China or at least assert a better relationship directly with the Chinese government (Civil War in China, 1924, 527). It was only then, that the constant struggle for a nation, China, became an issue for American politics.

With China under drastic disarray, due to the Kuomintang government, Peking government, Chairman Mao’s new Communism, Japanese people, and even the people uprising and using coup d’état as a way for Capitalist revolutions, China was certainly bound and constant civil war to a degree that is unimaginable (1924). America used this communist idea, their own perceived idea of Communism, that influenced countries like China and Russia’s ideal, and believed it would take over their country (Kaufman, 1988, 310). For America, Communism ideals were distraught and only could harm the country, even though China and Russia as a state have both succeeded through civil war.

In China’s defense against the use of America’s anti-Communism, I would argue Maslow’ Hierarchy of Needs would be relevant for the development of China without American influence of anti-Communism, as to why Cultural relativism is relevant to the evaluation of China’s crisis (Johns, 2017). I am not saying that China did everything right and ethically correct, but due to Nixon’s presidential system and international affairs, that was China’s only option. I would argue being able to build a country in relevance with the Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is based upon a socio-psychology that defines the satisfaction of moving up the ladder of growth in an individual. The layers of the pyramid begins with Psychological – the sleep, rest, food, water, and basic needs that are required for a human being. The next layer is security- whether an individual has the safety, security, money and

 

personal wellness are evaluated at this level of satisfaction. The layer above is love and belonging, the sense of having relationships and how they impact a person. As a country, I can expand these relationships to the state level, because it impacts how a state is going to build itself when it has these levels satisfied. China was not going to take any understanding from Americans, especially when their policy is anti-Communism and their presidents were very

anti-Communist. This is why a heavier evaluation is required to understand a nation that is completely different from America. China was still building its own ability to supply water, food, basic security for their citizens.

To assume that a certain political structure was enough to be a part of the international community is irrelevant. Assuming to disregard China as an insufficient nation is like saying that to judge another person’s ability, disregarding the context of how they are, and the situation they were in to be politically capable is not an appropriate criteria. America’s assumptions and judgements can be equivalent to saying that they can hate other nations just because of what they think they believe. Let us assume a hypothetical, looking at Freedom of Speech. Let us also assume three different people. Two people at the national airport terminal. He is with his colleague chatting about an issue at work. The third person would sit back and listen to their conversation, named Bob. The two people who are chatting ends up saying a derogatory comment, such as slavery, homophobic, racist or cynical. The only other problem would be that Bob only heard the derogatory comment and nothing else in the conversation. Yet, Bob acts on this cynical ideology and tells a Terminal Special officer about it. To be able to act on this without situation or context would make any conversation very cynical. To think that because you had this idea of a person, because of a comment he said, without context or situation of the conversation, and to act upon this and tell an official because of what Bob thinks, is what is

 

cynical. My point is not that we should not repress phobic language, but without understanding why they talk about it or the context in which they are talking about is toxic. This scenario would be similar to America making assumptions based entirely because of the fact that China has declared itself to be Communist country. China certainly endured many political opinions and was only building itself to be able to handle the growing economy and globalization.

China already resisted the capitalist theory, Japanese rule, Chinese dynasties rule, and

 

far-right wing thinkers. China has already been brought back down to the bare minimum of what they had, due to all this fighting and a coup d’état, and whether it was sure going to be successful because of a communist ideal. For China to be able to develop a country to prosper so they can be concerned with other issues would be relevant to Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. China also went through a famine for a segment of time, where even the basic levels of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs were affected (Johns, 2017). Therefore, having an understanding over a more thorough understanding of the issues that countries have had to deal with, which was cultural relativism and understanding why this was a problem. I am not saying that Cultural Relativism is an excuse for China’s actions and human rights violations, but when America begins to ignore another country based on what they think to be the conclusion of their political view and disregard them as so, which creates foundations for political and civil human rights violations.

How America created issues for China’s human rights. (Argument) In contemporary China, China was already having a war for what is now called People’s Republic of China. Despite all these attacks on China’s land to occupy, there were many distinct political changes. China was trying to change from a democratic to a communist ideological country, due to the change in government and the civil wars that were led from Japan after the First World War (Donnelly, 2007). At the same time, America was giving Turkey and Greece financial aid,

 

although they both have had civil wars that changed their respective governments (Merrill, 2006, 32). After the Tiananmen Square incident, China was evidently in killing their citizens, but America themselves stopped financial support for China’s actions (Donnelly, 2007). American initially stopped their funding, due to China’s action in the Tiananmen Square incident, but it was evident that it was also because China was communist. Greece and Turkey stayed away from a communist government rule, but America was still giving funding to China with Greece and Turkey. I am not saying that because America’s direct financial funding has affected China’s human rights, but it certainly played a role in denying China’s ability to build their country, then form proper policies for ensuring human rights. In relationship with Maslow’s Hierarchy, if a country cannot have food, water, or the basic security as a nation, they cannot build on aspects for self-actualizing and optimal qualities. Self-actualizing as in securing the demands of other nations’ through the United Nations councils, for example the human rights that grant every person in a state political, social and financial rights. Although human rights in China was a violation in 1949, the constant struggle trying to change ideologies after a civil war is evident in holding a country back from building a nation functional with human rights (2007). I am not arguing to excuse China for any of the atrocities committed, but if America was consistent with their support with nations, then there could have been better foreign relationships and negotiations to help build China’s human rights platforms. America and being one of the permanent members of the United Nations does play a big role in decision making towards China and building from its ideological and civil war (2007).

For the uses of Cultural relativism, it would change how America is looked at, as being the highest standard of morals (Kaufman et al. 1988, 309). America is using a universalism approach to critique China’s morals based upon what they believe are justified. This is why

 

America should have judged China’s actions on a more cultural relativist approach, rather than denying proper relationships based on what China says is Communism. I am not saying that cultural relativism is the greatest philosophical theory, I am arguing that China would be analyzed with a more understanding approach.

In the Asian values argument, Donnelly talks about how cultural relativism arguments are contingent and consistent to their specific cultures. He argues how the cultural relativist approach is inconsistent with their Asian values argument. He argues cultures have always changed and configured itself to what is relevant to current day societies, for example democracy and adequate governments. He argues that if Asians do something different back in the day, that Asians do not wish to change that they do now (Donnelly, 2007, 163).

My Asian values’ argument is not that cultures and human rights abuses are excused because they are of different cultures. My argument is that cultures can judge themselves, due to understanding of context and situation that culture is dealing with, rather than having other countries judge them based on universalistic approach. By having a West meets East argument of critiquing and judging each other’s leaders on the decisions they make, they make West look like the moral and cultural superior ones. Since Western countries think that Communism has affected them detrimentally. America’s universalism approach to Communism is a human rights’ hazard. My argument is more formulated on the premise that countries should be able to judge themselves, because they understand the situation, circumstance and how they are, rather than having countries use a Universalist approach to judge each other, disregarding a country’s critical problem. Because of Communism, America saw a need to contain it and ward against it. Cultural relativism is not excusing China for human rights violations, it is expanding America’s ability to critique and make judgements based on their perspectives.

 

In conclusion, I have looked at America’s perspective of anti-Communism, how

 

anti-communism was created and how taking a more cultural relativist perspective can change their analysis of China. Although these strained perspectives of anti-Communism began in the First World War, by keeping a universalistic perspective have harmed the progression to China’s human rights.

America has been a seemingly very promising and prominent country, but it has stopped and is no longer the most powerful country since WWII. They have been the country of the Free World, and have been one of the most powerful leaders in the World’s history. Although America has won most of their wars, and created one of the powerful nations during the four US administrations, their power is subject to be skeptical. They have not been the strongest and a model country, because the way USA policy is detrimental and unstable with how their country turns out to be, when looked upon critically over the three US administrations after World War

  1. How America’s criticism of China’s Communism has directly affected China’s human rights and development and stopped international development and human rights. I will argue that the US critique from assumptions that America is universally the best nation in the world, rather than being a culturally unique and ideal country for the West. Countries do not grow as a state the same way, then why does America model itself as the ideal standard. I will look directly into the relationship of China after the Second World War, while being thorough with Cultural relativism argues that America’s culture and assumptions are relative, not widely-accepted, in the years following the Second World War. I will show how America’s own perceived information regarding the conditions of China, can lead to impulsive short sighted decisions that affect important aspects in China’s human rights and development.

In my argument, I will be talking about how it is detrimental to make the assumptions that America has made for China throughout the 2nd World War. By how assumptions have created a critical barrier to stop and created determinants towards human rights and the existence of Chinese citizens. I will be looking directly into arguments such as, China has no GDP, because they refuse to accept Western ideal of critiques. I will also look into the assumption that

 

because China is communist, their policy is directly detrimental to Chinese citizens. I acknowledge that this is how the twenty-first century turned out, but I am arguing that if America did not have this kind of critique, America would not need to deal with China in both the 2nd World War and the Korean War. This was due to America’s perception of China and how Communism was a bad governmental policy for a country. I will critically analyze using a cultural relativist perspective, as to the flaws with the way that America has chosen to win “their” wars. My argument is based upon the circumstances and the situations that China has been put under when they were considered a new country. This is critical because there was no political uprising from the creation of the People Republic of China. I will argue a more in depth analysis about the circumstances after World War II and philosophical theories that may have contributed to the construction of China and how America’s quick assumptions and demonization have created issues for structural progression, even in regards to human rights.

As human rights is an issue for many countries, the basis of continual human rights is in the United Nations Declaration of Human rights. The United Nations human rights are defined as rights given to everyone, because they are human (Universal Human Rights, 1998). For the sake of this argument, I will be arguing that certain rights, which are given without discrimination, are being denied because a country’s status and support is not fulfilled and thus causing issues towards building a secure and stable economy. I will be arguing in relationship to China-

American relationship and how denial of support due to the fact that America has an

 

anti-Communist policy at the time, greatly affecting China’s ability to rebuild itself as a country, after the Second World War.

Cultural Relativism

 

Cultural relativism is an important aspect towards understanding this relationship between China and America. I am not arguing that Cultural relativism is the absolute criteria for any other country, but a more expanded criteria to understand the circumstances of China, following the Second World War. America, as a Western nation, took part and won World War II, making it a country who is superior to the East or Asian countries. Cultural relativism is defined as having norms and realities that exist subjected to a certain culture, and by which there are no universal norms that people are held to (Beghramin, 2015). For the sake of this argument, I am assuming that there is a certain degree of understanding for a culture, to judge another country based on their own subjective criteria. It is immoral, but has held and stopped international affairs with China. I acknowledge that there are certain universal morals, but I will be evaluating them based on the circumstances of how China dealt with communism and their basis of subjective and societal morals are more cultural relative and bound.

Historical Overview

 

America, during Eisenhower’s administration, was trying to recover from the Second World War. At this time, their political views were swayed to secure that Communism would not create America’s perspectives. Eisenhower initially stated that he would not sign or endorse a multinational human rights treaty (Donnelly, 2017, 366). Furthermore, this is what led to how the Bricker Amendment that stopped the Americans from taking up civil and political human rights or foreign influence (Kaufman, et al. 1988, 309). The main issue of both Communism in international affairs and preventing the basic human rights in the American congress was because of the Bricker Amendment (Donnelly, 2017, 366). The Bricker Amendment was considered to deter from what Americans viewed as “back-door Communism”(Kaufman, et al.

1988, 310).The self-proclaimed leader of the free world was acting as if human rights concerns

 

were undermined by the attack of Communism from the Soviet Russia (2017). For America, it was seemingly that to be anti-communist and anti-human rights and anti-international influence was subjected.

America’s room for anti-Communism is clear throughout the information provided.

 

America’s perspective for this kind of thinking has been demonized since the First World War. Communism/Socialism is a bad ideology and using it on a political level will never progress a country, while suspecting those Communist perspectives (W. H. D. R, 1948, 440). My perspective is not that Communism is the best approach to creating a country, my concern is when you put all proposed legislation and propositions, in a Federal senate, to a demonized Communist ideal just too legally and unanimously dismiss it.

China was more of a country trying to create good profit, although China was solely based upon a Communist margin, there were logical issues that constrained China due to a constant civil war that enveloped a country. While China was confronted with a civil war that desecrated the country, with constant civil war for power between countries, they still had to fight in the new World War, the second. I am not saying that these restrains or cultural relativism are any excuse to allow China to do whatever they wanted, but this is what Chairman Mao thought was right, in the given context, and by creating distant relationships with America greatly affected how China grew as a country (Pauly, 2012, 829). As China faced its greatest challenges as a nation, unsure whether they were to assert a Communism country, based upon many drastically different politics that enveloped China during the end of the Kuomintang Government, played a significant role in how China was to be rebuilt (Hookham, 1979, 170).

The wars that happened after the Kuomintang government was mainly because of two ideological giants that existed (Anstey, 1987, 316). The Communist Party of China was more of

 

a balance between the Russian and the America’s ideologies. With China having their own civil war of many different politics, Japanese people sat back and invaded China many times to gain power over China or at least assert a better relationship directly with the Chinese government (Civil War in China, 1924, 527). It was only then, that the constant struggle for a nation, China, became an issue for American politics.

With China under drastic disarray, due to the Kuomintang government, Peking government, Chairman Mao’s new Communism, Japanese people, and even the people uprising and using coup d’état as a way for Capitalist revolutions, China was certainly bound and constant civil war to a degree that is unimaginable (1924). America used this communist idea, their own perceived idea of Communism, that influenced countries like China and Russia’s ideal, and believed it would take over their country (Kaufman, 1988, 310). For America, Communism ideals were distraught and only could harm the country, even though China and Russia as a state have both succeeded through civil war.

In China’s defense against the use of America’s anti-Communism, I would argue Maslow’ Hierarchy of Needs would be relevant for the development of China without American influence of anti-Communism, as to why Cultural relativism is relevant to the evaluation of China’s crisis (Johns, 2017). I am not saying that China did everything right and ethically correct, but due to Nixon’s presidential system and international affairs, that was China’s only option. I would argue being able to build a country in relevance with the Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is based upon a socio-psychology that defines the satisfaction of moving up the ladder of growth in an individual. The layers of the pyramid begins with Psychological – the sleep, rest, food, water, and basic needs that are required for a human being. The next layer is security- whether an individual has the safety, security, money and

 

personal wellness are evaluated at this level of satisfaction. The layer above is love and belonging, the sense of having relationships and how they impact a person. As a country, I can expand these relationships to the state level, because it impacts how a state is going to build itself when it has these levels satisfied. China was not going to take any understanding from Americans, especially when their policy is anti-Communism and their presidents were very

anti-Communist. This is why a heavier evaluation is required to understand a nation that is completely different from America. China was still building its own ability to supply water, food, basic security for their citizens.

To assume that a certain political structure was enough to be a part of the international community is irrelevant. Assuming to disregard China as an insufficient nation is like saying that to judge another person’s ability, disregarding the context of how they are, and the situation they were in to be politically capable is not an appropriate criteria. America’s assumptions and judgements can be equivalent to saying that they can hate other nations just because of what they think they believe. Let us assume a hypothetical, looking at Freedom of Speech. Let us also assume three different people. Two people at the national airport terminal. He is with his colleague chatting about an issue at work. The third person would sit back and listen to their conversation, named Bob. The two people who are chatting ends up saying a derogatory comment, such as slavery, homophobic, racist or cynical. The only other problem would be that Bob only heard the derogatory comment and nothing else in the conversation. Yet, Bob acts on this cynical ideology and tells a Terminal Special officer about it. To be able to act on this without situation or context would make any conversation very cynical. To think that because you had this idea of a person, because of a comment he said, without context or situation of the conversation, and to act upon this and tell an official because of what Bob thinks, is what is

 

cynical. My point is not that we should not repress phobic language, but without understanding why they talk about it or the context in which they are talking about is toxic. This scenario would be similar to America making assumptions based entirely because of the fact that China has declared itself to be Communist country. China certainly endured many political opinions and was only building itself to be able to handle the growing economy and globalization.

China already resisted the capitalist theory, Japanese rule, Chinese dynasties rule, and

 

far-right wing thinkers. China has already been brought back down to the bare minimum of what they had, due to all this fighting and a coup d’état, and whether it was sure going to be successful because of a communist ideal. For China to be able to develop a country to prosper so they can be concerned with other issues would be relevant to Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. China also went through a famine for a segment of time, where even the basic levels of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs were affected (Johns, 2017). Therefore, having an understanding over a more thorough understanding of the issues that countries have had to deal with, which was cultural relativism and understanding why this was a problem. I am not saying that Cultural Relativism is an excuse for China’s actions and human rights violations, but when America begins to ignore another country based on what they think to be the conclusion of their political view and disregard them as so, which creates foundations for political and civil human rights violations.

How America created issues for China’s human rights. (Argument) In contemporary China, China was already having a war for what is now called People’s Republic of China. Despite all these attacks on China’s land to occupy, there were many distinct political changes. China was trying to change from a democratic to a communist ideological country, due to the change in government and the civil wars that were led from Japan after the First World War (Donnelly, 2007). At the same time, America was giving Turkey and Greece financial aid,

 

although they both have had civil wars that changed their respective governments (Merrill, 2006, 32). After the Tiananmen Square incident, China was evidently in killing their citizens, but America themselves stopped financial support for China’s actions (Donnelly, 2007). American initially stopped their funding, due to China’s action in the Tiananmen Square incident, but it was evident that it was also because China was communist. Greece and Turkey stayed away from a communist government rule, but America was still giving funding to China with Greece and Turkey. I am not saying that because America’s direct financial funding has affected China’s human rights, but it certainly played a role in denying China’s ability to build their country, then form proper policies for ensuring human rights. In relationship with Maslow’s Hierarchy, if a country cannot have food, water, or the basic security as a nation, they cannot build on aspects for self-actualizing and optimal qualities. Self-actualizing as in securing the demands of other nations’ through the United Nations councils, for example the human rights that grant every person in a state political, social and financial rights. Although human rights in China was a violation in 1949, the constant struggle trying to change ideologies after a civil war is evident in holding a country back from building a nation functional with human rights (2007). I am not arguing to excuse China for any of the atrocities committed, but if America was consistent with their support with nations, then there could have been better foreign relationships and negotiations to help build China’s human rights platforms. America and being one of the permanent members of the United Nations does play a big role in decision making towards China and building from its ideological and civil war (2007).

For the uses of Cultural relativism, it would change how America is looked at, as being the highest standard of morals (Kaufman et al. 1988, 309). America is using a universalism approach to critique China’s morals based upon what they believe are justified. This is why

 

America should have judged China’s actions on a more cultural relativist approach, rather than denying proper relationships based on what China says is Communism. I am not saying that cultural relativism is the greatest philosophical theory, I am arguing that China would be analyzed with a more understanding approach.

In the Asian values argument, Donnelly talks about how cultural relativism arguments are contingent and consistent to their specific cultures. He argues how the cultural relativist approach is inconsistent with their Asian values argument. He argues cultures have always changed and configured itself to what is relevant to current day societies, for example democracy and adequate governments. He argues that if Asians do something different back in the day, that Asians do not wish to change that they do now (Donnelly, 2007, 163).

My Asian values’ argument is not that cultures and human rights abuses are excused because they are of different cultures. My argument is that cultures can judge themselves, due to understanding of context and situation that culture is dealing with, rather than having other countries judge them based on universalistic approach. By having a West meets East argument of critiquing and judging each other’s leaders on the decisions they make, they make West look like the moral and cultural superior ones. Since Western countries think that Communism has affected them detrimentally. America’s universalism approach to Communism is a human rights’ hazard. My argument is more formulated on the premise that countries should be able to judge themselves, because they understand the situation, circumstance and how they are, rather than having countries use a Universalist approach to judge each other, disregarding a country’s critical problem. Because of Communism, America saw a need to contain it and ward against it. Cultural relativism is not excusing China for human rights violations, it is expanding America’s ability to critique and make judgements based on their perspectives.

 

In conclusion, I have looked at America’s perspective of anti-Communism, how

 

anti-communism was created and how taking a more cultural relativist perspective can change their analysis of China. Although these strained perspectives of anti-Communism began in the First World War, by keeping a universalistic perspective have harmed the progression to China’s human rights.

America has been a seemingly very promising and prominent country, but it has stopped and is no longer the most powerful country since WWII. They have been the country of the Free World, and have been one of the most powerful leaders in the World’s history. Although America has won most of their wars, and created one of the powerful nations during the four US administrations, their power is subject to be skeptical. They have not been the strongest and a model country, because the way USA policy is detrimental and unstable with how their country turns out to be, when looked upon critically over the three US administrations after World War

  1. How America’s criticism of China’s Communism has directly affected China’s human rights and development and stopped international development and human rights. I will argue that the US critique from assumptions that America is universally the best nation in the world, rather than being a culturally unique and ideal country for the West. Countries do not grow as a state the same way, then why does America model itself as the ideal standard. I will look directly into the relationship of China after the Second World War, while being thorough with Cultural relativism argues that America’s culture and assumptions are relative, not widely-accepted, in the years following the Second World War. I will show how America’s own perceived information regarding the conditions of China, can lead to impulsive short sighted decisions that affect important aspects in China’s human rights and development.

In my argument, I will be talking about how it is detrimental to make the assumptions that America has made for China throughout the 2nd World War. By how assumptions have created a critical barrier to stop and created determinants towards human rights and the existence of Chinese citizens. I will be looking directly into arguments such as, China has no GDP, because they refuse to accept Western ideal of critiques. I will also look into the assumption that

 

because China is communist, their policy is directly detrimental to Chinese citizens. I acknowledge that this is how the twenty-first century turned out, but I am arguing that if America did not have this kind of critique, America would not need to deal with China in both the 2nd World War and the Korean War. This was due to America’s perception of China and how Communism was a bad governmental policy for a country. I will critically analyze using a cultural relativist perspective, as to the flaws with the way that America has chosen to win “their” wars. My argument is based upon the circumstances and the situations that China has been put under when they were considered a new country. This is critical because there was no political uprising from the creation of the People Republic of China. I will argue a more in depth analysis about the circumstances after World War II and philosophical theories that may have contributed to the construction of China and how America’s quick assumptions and demonization have created issues for structural progression, even in regards to human rights.

As human rights is an issue for many countries, the basis of continual human rights is in the United Nations Declaration of Human rights. The United Nations human rights are defined as rights given to everyone, because they are human (Universal Human Rights, 1998). For the sake of this argument, I will be arguing that certain rights, which are given without discrimination, are being denied because a country’s status and support is not fulfilled and thus causing issues towards building a secure and stable economy. I will be arguing in relationship to China-

American relationship and how denial of support due to the fact that America has an

 

anti-Communist policy at the time, greatly affecting China’s ability to rebuild itself as a country, after the Second World War.

Cultural Relativism

 

Cultural relativism is an important aspect towards understanding this relationship between China and America. I am not arguing that Cultural relativism is the absolute criteria for any other country, but a more expanded criteria to understand the circumstances of China, following the Second World War. America, as a Western nation, took part and won World War II, making it a country who is superior to the East or Asian countries. Cultural relativism is defined as having norms and realities that exist subjected to a certain culture, and by which there are no universal norms that people are held to (Beghramin, 2015). For the sake of this argument, I am assuming that there is a certain degree of understanding for a culture, to judge another country based on their own subjective criteria. It is immoral, but has held and stopped international affairs with China. I acknowledge that there are certain universal morals, but I will be evaluating them based on the circumstances of how China dealt with communism and their basis of subjective and societal morals are more cultural relative and bound.

Historical Overview

 

America, during Eisenhower’s administration, was trying to recover from the Second World War. At this time, their political views were swayed to secure that Communism would not create America’s perspectives. Eisenhower initially stated that he would not sign or endorse a multinational human rights treaty (Donnelly, 2017, 366). Furthermore, this is what led to how the Bricker Amendment that stopped the Americans from taking up civil and political human rights or foreign influence (Kaufman, et al. 1988, 309). The main issue of both Communism in international affairs and preventing the basic human rights in the American congress was because of the Bricker Amendment (Donnelly, 2017, 366). The Bricker Amendment was considered to deter from what Americans viewed as “back-door Communism”(Kaufman, et al.

1988, 310).The self-proclaimed leader of the free world was acting as if human rights concerns

 

were undermined by the attack of Communism from the Soviet Russia (2017). For America, it was seemingly that to be anti-communist and anti-human rights and anti-international influence was subjected.

America’s room for anti-Communism is clear throughout the information provided.

 

America’s perspective for this kind of thinking has been demonized since the First World War. Communism/Socialism is a bad ideology and using it on a political level will never progress a country, while suspecting those Communist perspectives (W. H. D. R, 1948, 440). My perspective is not that Communism is the best approach to creating a country, my concern is when you put all proposed legislation and propositions, in a Federal senate, to a demonized Communist ideal just too legally and unanimously dismiss it.

China was more of a country trying to create good profit, although China was solely based upon a Communist margin, there were logical issues that constrained China due to a constant civil war that enveloped a country. While China was confronted with a civil war that desecrated the country, with constant civil war for power between countries, they still had to fight in the new World War, the second. I am not saying that these restrains or cultural relativism are any excuse to allow China to do whatever they wanted, but this is what Chairman Mao thought was right, in the given context, and by creating distant relationships with America greatly affected how China grew as a country (Pauly, 2012, 829). As China faced its greatest challenges as a nation, unsure whether they were to assert a Communism country, based upon many drastically different politics that enveloped China during the end of the Kuomintang Government, played a significant role in how China was to be rebuilt (Hookham, 1979, 170).

The wars that happened after the Kuomintang government was mainly because of two ideological giants that existed (Anstey, 1987, 316). The Communist Party of China was more of

 

a balance between the Russian and the America’s ideologies. With China having their own civil war of many different politics, Japanese people sat back and invaded China many times to gain power over China or at least assert a better relationship directly with the Chinese government (Civil War in China, 1924, 527). It was only then, that the constant struggle for a nation, China, became an issue for American politics.

With China under drastic disarray, due to the Kuomintang government, Peking government, Chairman Mao’s new Communism, Japanese people, and even the people uprising and using coup d’état as a way for Capitalist revolutions, China was certainly bound and constant civil war to a degree that is unimaginable (1924). America used this communist idea, their own perceived idea of Communism, that influenced countries like China and Russia’s ideal, and believed it would take over their country (Kaufman, 1988, 310). For America, Communism ideals were distraught and only could harm the country, even though China and Russia as a state have both succeeded through civil war.

In China’s defense against the use of America’s anti-Communism, I would argue Maslow’ Hierarchy of Needs would be relevant for the development of China without American influence of anti-Communism, as to why Cultural relativism is relevant to the evaluation of China’s crisis (Johns, 2017). I am not saying that China did everything right and ethically correct, but due to Nixon’s presidential system and international affairs, that was China’s only option. I would argue being able to build a country in relevance with the Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is based upon a socio-psychology that defines the satisfaction of moving up the ladder of growth in an individual. The layers of the pyramid begins with Psychological – the sleep, rest, food, water, and basic needs that are required for a human being. The next layer is security- whether an individual has the safety, security, money and

 

personal wellness are evaluated at this level of satisfaction. The layer above is love and belonging, the sense of having relationships and how they impact a person. As a country, I can expand these relationships to the state level, because it impacts how a state is going to build itself when it has these levels satisfied. China was not going to take any understanding from Americans, especially when their policy is anti-Communism and their presidents were very

anti-Communist. This is why a heavier evaluation is required to understand a nation that is completely different from America. China was still building its own ability to supply water, food, basic security for their citizens.

To assume that a certain political structure was enough to be a part of the international community is irrelevant. Assuming to disregard China as an insufficient nation is like saying that to judge another person’s ability, disregarding the context of how they are, and the situation they were in to be politically capable is not an appropriate criteria. America’s assumptions and judgements can be equivalent to saying that they can hate other nations just because of what they think they believe. Let us assume a hypothetical, looking at Freedom of Speech. Let us also assume three different people. Two people at the national airport terminal. He is with his colleague chatting about an issue at work. The third person would sit back and listen to their conversation, named Bob. The two people who are chatting ends up saying a derogatory comment, such as slavery, homophobic, racist or cynical. The only other problem would be that Bob only heard the derogatory comment and nothing else in the conversation. Yet, Bob acts on this cynical ideology and tells a Terminal Special officer about it. To be able to act on this without situation or context would make any conversation very cynical. To think that because you had this idea of a person, because of a comment he said, without context or situation of the conversation, and to act upon this and tell an official because of what Bob thinks, is what is

 

cynical. My point is not that we should not repress phobic language, but without understanding why they talk about it or the context in which they are talking about is toxic. This scenario would be similar to America making assumptions based entirely because of the fact that China has declared itself to be Communist country. China certainly endured many political opinions and was only building itself to be able to handle the growing economy and globalization.

China already resisted the capitalist theory, Japanese rule, Chinese dynasties rule, and

 

far-right wing thinkers. China has already been brought back down to the bare minimum of what they had, due to all this fighting and a coup d’état, and whether it was sure going to be successful because of a communist ideal. For China to be able to develop a country to prosper so they can be concerned with other issues would be relevant to Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. China also went through a famine for a segment of time, where even the basic levels of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs were affected (Johns, 2017). Therefore, having an understanding over a more thorough understanding of the issues that countries have had to deal with, which was cultural relativism and understanding why this was a problem. I am not saying that Cultural Relativism is an excuse for China’s actions and human rights violations, but when America begins to ignore another country based on what they think to be the conclusion of their political view and disregard them as so, which creates foundations for political and civil human rights violations.

How America created issues for China’s human rights. (Argument) In contemporary China, China was already having a war for what is now called People’s Republic of China. Despite all these attacks on China’s land to occupy, there were many distinct political changes. China was trying to change from a democratic to a communist ideological country, due to the change in government and the civil wars that were led from Japan after the First World War (Donnelly, 2007). At the same time, America was giving Turkey and Greece financial aid,

 

although they both have had civil wars that changed their respective governments (Merrill, 2006, 32). After the Tiananmen Square incident, China was evidently in killing their citizens, but America themselves stopped financial support for China’s actions (Donnelly, 2007). American initially stopped their funding, due to China’s action in the Tiananmen Square incident, but it was evident that it was also because China was communist. Greece and Turkey stayed away from a communist government rule, but America was still giving funding to China with Greece and Turkey. I am not saying that because America’s direct financial funding has affected China’s human rights, but it certainly played a role in denying China’s ability to build their country, then form proper policies for ensuring human rights. In relationship with Maslow’s Hierarchy, if a country cannot have food, water, or the basic security as a nation, they cannot build on aspects for self-actualizing and optimal qualities. Self-actualizing as in securing the demands of other nations’ through the United Nations councils, for example the human rights that grant every person in a state political, social and financial rights. Although human rights in China was a violation in 1949, the constant struggle trying to change ideologies after a civil war is evident in holding a country back from building a nation functional with human rights (2007). I am not arguing to excuse China for any of the atrocities committed, but if America was consistent with their support with nations, then there could have been better foreign relationships and negotiations to help build China’s human rights platforms. America and being one of the permanent members of the United Nations does play a big role in decision making towards China and building from its ideological and civil war (2007).

For the uses of Cultural relativism, it would change how America is looked at, as being the highest standard of morals (Kaufman et al. 1988, 309). America is using a universalism approach to critique China’s morals based upon what they believe are justified. This is why

 

America should have judged China’s actions on a more cultural relativist approach, rather than denying proper relationships based on what China says is Communism. I am not saying that cultural relativism is the greatest philosophical theory, I am arguing that China would be analyzed with a more understanding approach.

In the Asian values argument, Donnelly talks about how cultural relativism arguments are contingent and consistent to their specific cultures. He argues how the cultural relativist approach is inconsistent with their Asian values argument. He argues cultures have always changed and configured itself to what is relevant to current day societies, for example democracy and adequate governments. He argues that if Asians do something different back in the day, that Asians do not wish to change that they do now (Donnelly, 2007, 163).

My Asian values’ argument is not that cultures and human rights abuses are excused because they are of different cultures. My argument is that cultures can judge themselves, due to understanding of context and situation that culture is dealing with, rather than having other countries judge them based on universalistic approach. By having a West meets East argument of critiquing and judging each other’s leaders on the decisions they make, they make West look like the moral and cultural superior ones. Since Western countries think that Communism has affected them detrimentally. America’s universalism approach to Communism is a human rights’ hazard. My argument is more formulated on the premise that countries should be able to judge themselves, because they understand the situation, circumstance and how they are, rather than having countries use a Universalist approach to judge each other, disregarding a country’s critical problem. Because of Communism, America saw a need to contain it and ward against it. Cultural relativism is not excusing China for human rights violations, it is expanding America’s ability to critique and make judgements based on their perspectives.

 

In conclusion, I have looked at America’s perspective of anti-Communism, how

 

anti-communism was created and how taking a more cultural relativist perspective can change their analysis of China. Although these strained perspectives of anti-Communism began in the First World War, by keeping a universalistic perspective have harmed the progression to China’s human rights.

America has been a seemingly very promising and prominent country, but it has stopped and is no longer the most powerful country since WWII. They have been the country of the Free World, and have been one of the most powerful leaders in the World’s history. Although America has won most of their wars, and created one of the powerful nations during the four US administrations, their power is subject to be skeptical. They have not been the strongest and a model country, because the way USA policy is detrimental and unstable with how their country turns out to be, when looked upon critically over the three US administrations after World War

  1. How America’s criticism of China’s Communism has directly affected China’s human rights and development and stopped international development and human rights. I will argue that the US critique from assumptions that America is universally the best nation in the world, rather than being a culturally unique and ideal country for the West. Countries do not grow as a state the same way, then why does America model itself as the ideal standard. I will look directly into the relationship of China after the Second World War, while being thorough with Cultural relativism argues that America’s culture and assumptions are relative, not widely-accepted, in the years following the Second World War. I will show how America’s own perceived information regarding the conditions of China, can lead to impulsive short sighted decisions that affect important aspects in China’s human rights and development.

In my argument, I will be talking about how it is detrimental to make the assumptions that America has made for China throughout the 2nd World War. By how assumptions have created a critical barrier to stop and created determinants towards human rights and the existence of Chinese citizens. I will be looking directly into arguments such as, China has no GDP, because they refuse to accept Western ideal of critiques. I will also look into the assumption that

 

because China is communist, their policy is directly detrimental to Chinese citizens. I acknowledge that this is how the twenty-first century turned out, but I am arguing that if America did not have this kind of critique, America would not need to deal with China in both the 2nd World War and the Korean War. This was due to America’s perception of China and how Communism was a bad governmental policy for a country. I will critically analyze using a cultural relativist perspective, as to the flaws with the way that America has chosen to win “their” wars. My argument is based upon the circumstances and the situations that China has been put under when they were considered a new country. This is critical because there was no political uprising from the creation of the People Republic of China. I will argue a more in depth analysis about the circumstances after World War II and philosophical theories that may have contributed to the construction of China and how America’s quick assumptions and demonization have created issues for structural progression, even in regards to human rights.

As human rights is an issue for many countries, the basis of continual human rights is in the United Nations Declaration of Human rights. The United Nations human rights are defined as rights given to everyone, because they are human (Universal Human Rights, 1998). For the sake of this argument, I will be arguing that certain rights, which are given without discrimination, are being denied because a country’s status and support is not fulfilled and thus causing issues towards building a secure and stable economy. I will be arguing in relationship to China-

American relationship and how denial of support due to the fact that America has an

 

anti-Communist policy at the time, greatly affecting China’s ability to rebuild itself as a country, after the Second World War.

Cultural Relativism

 

Cultural relativism is an important aspect towards understanding this relationship between China and America. I am not arguing that Cultural relativism is the absolute criteria for any other country, but a more expanded criteria to understand the circumstances of China, following the Second World War. America, as a Western nation, took part and won World War II, making it a country who is superior to the East or Asian countries. Cultural relativism is defined as having norms and realities that exist subjected to a certain culture, and by which there are no universal norms that people are held to (Beghramin, 2015). For the sake of this argument, I am assuming that there is a certain degree of understanding for a culture, to judge another country based on their own subjective criteria. It is immoral, but has held and stopped international affairs with China. I acknowledge that there are certain universal morals, but I will be evaluating them based on the circumstances of how China dealt with communism and their basis of subjective and societal morals are more cultural relative and bound.

Historical Overview

 

America, during Eisenhower’s administration, was trying to recover from the Second World War. At this time, their political views were swayed to secure that Communism would not create America’s perspectives. Eisenhower initially stated that he would not sign or endorse a multinational human rights treaty (Donnelly, 2017, 366). Furthermore, this is what led to how the Bricker Amendment that stopped the Americans from taking up civil and political human rights or foreign influence (Kaufman, et al. 1988, 309). The main issue of both Communism in international affairs and preventing the basic human rights in the American congress was because of the Bricker Amendment (Donnelly, 2017, 366). The Bricker Amendment was considered to deter from what Americans viewed as “back-door Communism”(Kaufman, et al.

1988, 310).The self-proclaimed leader of the free world was acting as if human rights concerns

 

were undermined by the attack of Communism from the Soviet Russia (2017). For America, it was seemingly that to be anti-communist and anti-human rights and anti-international influence was subjected.

America’s room for anti-Communism is clear throughout the information provided.

 

America’s perspective for this kind of thinking has been demonized since the First World War. Communism/Socialism is a bad ideology and using it on a political level will never progress a country, while suspecting those Communist perspectives (W. H. D. R, 1948, 440). My perspective is not that Communism is the best approach to creating a country, my concern is when you put all proposed legislation and propositions, in a Federal senate, to a demonized Communist ideal just too legally and unanimously dismiss it.

China was more of a country trying to create good profit, although China was solely based upon a Communist margin, there were logical issues that constrained China due to a constant civil war that enveloped a country. While China was confronted with a civil war that desecrated the country, with constant civil war for power between countries, they still had to fight in the new World War, the second. I am not saying that these restrains or cultural relativism are any excuse to allow China to do whatever they wanted, but this is what Chairman Mao thought was right, in the given context, and by creating distant relationships with America greatly affected how China grew as a country (Pauly, 2012, 829). As China faced its greatest challenges as a nation, unsure whether they were to assert a Communism country, based upon many drastically different politics that enveloped China during the end of the Kuomintang Government, played a significant role in how China was to be rebuilt (Hookham, 1979, 170).

The wars that happened after the Kuomintang government was mainly because of two ideological giants that existed (Anstey, 1987, 316). The Communist Party of China was more of

 

a balance between the Russian and the America’s ideologies. With China having their own civil war of many different politics, Japanese people sat back and invaded China many times to gain power over China or at least assert a better relationship directly with the Chinese government (Civil War in China, 1924, 527). It was only then, that the constant struggle for a nation, China, became an issue for American politics.

With China under drastic disarray, due to the Kuomintang government, Peking government, Chairman Mao’s new Communism, Japanese people, and even the people uprising and using coup d’état as a way for Capitalist revolutions, China was certainly bound and constant civil war to a degree that is unimaginable (1924). America used this communist idea, their own perceived idea of Communism, that influenced countries like China and Russia’s ideal, and believed it would take over their country (Kaufman, 1988, 310). For America, Communism ideals were distraught and only could harm the country, even though China and Russia as a state have both succeeded through civil war.

In China’s defense against the use of America’s anti-Communism, I would argue Maslow’ Hierarchy of Needs would be relevant for the development of China without American influence of anti-Communism, as to why Cultural relativism is relevant to the evaluation of China’s crisis (Johns, 2017). I am not saying that China did everything right and ethically correct, but due to Nixon’s presidential system and international affairs, that was China’s only option. I would argue being able to build a country in relevance with the Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is based upon a socio-psychology that defines the satisfaction of moving up the ladder of growth in an individual. The layers of the pyramid begins with Psychological – the sleep, rest, food, water, and basic needs that are required for a human being. The next layer is security- whether an individual has the safety, security, money and

 

personal wellness are evaluated at this level of satisfaction. The layer above is love and belonging, the sense of having relationships and how they impact a person. As a country, I can expand these relationships to the state level, because it impacts how a state is going to build itself when it has these levels satisfied. China was not going to take any understanding from Americans, especially when their policy is anti-Communism and their presidents were very

anti-Communist. This is why a heavier evaluation is required to understand a nation that is completely different from America. China was still building its own ability to supply water, food, basic security for their citizens.

To assume that a certain political structure was enough to be a part of the international community is irrelevant. Assuming to disregard China as an insufficient nation is like saying that to judge another person’s ability, disregarding the context of how they are, and the situation they were in to be politically capable is not an appropriate criteria. America’s assumptions and judgements can be equivalent to saying that they can hate other nations just because of what they think they believe. Let us assume a hypothetical, looking at Freedom of Speech. Let us also assume three different people. Two people at the national airport terminal. He is with his colleague chatting about an issue at work. The third person would sit back and listen to their conversation, named Bob. The two people who are chatting ends up saying a derogatory comment, such as slavery, homophobic, racist or cynical. The only other problem would be that Bob only heard the derogatory comment and nothing else in the conversation. Yet, Bob acts on this cynical ideology and tells a Terminal Special officer about it. To be able to act on this without situation or context would make any conversation very cynical. To think that because you had this idea of a person, because of a comment he said, without context or situation of the conversation, and to act upon this and tell an official because of what Bob thinks, is what is

 

cynical. My point is not that we should not repress phobic language, but without understanding why they talk about it or the context in which they are talking about is toxic. This scenario would be similar to America making assumptions based entirely because of the fact that China has declared itself to be Communist country. China certainly endured many political opinions and was only building itself to be able to handle the growing economy and globalization.

China already resisted the capitalist theory, Japanese rule, Chinese dynasties rule, and

 

far-right wing thinkers. China has already been brought back down to the bare minimum of what they had, due to all this fighting and a coup d’état, and whether it was sure going to be successful because of a communist ideal. For China to be able to develop a country to prosper so they can be concerned with other issues would be relevant to Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. China also went through a famine for a segment of time, where even the basic levels of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs were affected (Johns, 2017). Therefore, having an understanding over a more thorough understanding of the issues that countries have had to deal with, which was cultural relativism and understanding why this was a problem. I am not saying that Cultural Relativism is an excuse for China’s actions and human rights violations, but when America begins to ignore another country based on what they think to be the conclusion of their political view and disregard them as so, which creates foundations for political and civil human rights violations.

How America created issues for China’s human rights. (Argument) In contemporary China, China was already having a war for what is now called People’s Republic of China. Despite all these attacks on China’s land to occupy, there were many distinct political changes. China was trying to change from a democratic to a communist ideological country, due to the change in government and the civil wars that were led from Japan after the First World War (Donnelly, 2007). At the same time, America was giving Turkey and Greece financial aid,

 

although they both have had civil wars that changed their respective governments (Merrill, 2006, 32). After the Tiananmen Square incident, China was evidently in killing their citizens, but America themselves stopped financial support for China’s actions (Donnelly, 2007). American initially stopped their funding, due to China’s action in the Tiananmen Square incident, but it was evident that it was also because China was communist. Greece and Turkey stayed away from a communist government rule, but America was still giving funding to China with Greece and Turkey. I am not saying that because America’s direct financial funding has affected China’s human rights, but it certainly played a role in denying China’s ability to build their country, then form proper policies for ensuring human rights. In relationship with Maslow’s Hierarchy, if a country cannot have food, water, or the basic security as a nation, they cannot build on aspects for self-actualizing and optimal qualities. Self-actualizing as in securing the demands of other nations’ through the United Nations councils, for example the human rights that grant every person in a state political, social and financial rights. Although human rights in China was a violation in 1949, the constant struggle trying to change ideologies after a civil war is evident in holding a country back from building a nation functional with human rights (2007). I am not arguing to excuse China for any of the atrocities committed, but if America was consistent with their support with nations, then there could have been better foreign relationships and negotiations to help build China’s human rights platforms. America and being one of the permanent members of the United Nations does play a big role in decision making towards China and building from its ideological and civil war (2007).

For the uses of Cultural relativism, it would change how America is looked at, as being the highest standard of morals (Kaufman et al. 1988, 309). America is using a universalism approach to critique China’s morals based upon what they believe are justified. This is why

 

America should have judged China’s actions on a more cultural relativist approach, rather than denying proper relationships based on what China says is Communism. I am not saying that cultural relativism is the greatest philosophical theory, I am arguing that China would be analyzed with a more understanding approach.

In the Asian values argument, Donnelly talks about how cultural relativism arguments are contingent and consistent to their specific cultures. He argues how the cultural relativist approach is inconsistent with their Asian values argument. He argues cultures have always changed and configured itself to what is relevant to current day societies, for example democracy and adequate governments. He argues that if Asians do something different back in the day, that Asians do not wish to change that they do now (Donnelly, 2007, 163).

My Asian values’ argument is not that cultures and human rights abuses are excused because they are of different cultures. My argument is that cultures can judge themselves, due to understanding of context and situation that culture is dealing with, rather than having other countries judge them based on universalistic approach. By having a West meets East argument of critiquing and judging each other’s leaders on the decisions they make, they make West look like the moral and cultural superior ones. Since Western countries think that Communism has affected them detrimentally. America’s universalism approach to Communism is a human rights’ hazard. My argument is more formulated on the premise that countries should be able to judge themselves, because they understand the situation, circumstance and how they are, rather than having countries use a Universalist approach to judge each other, disregarding a country’s critical problem. Because of Communism, America saw a need to contain it and ward against it. Cultural relativism is not excusing China for human rights violations, it is expanding America’s ability to critique and make judgements based on their perspectives.

 

In conclusion, I have looked at America’s perspective of anti-Communism, how

 

anti-communism was created and how taking a more cultural relativist perspective can change their analysis of China. Although these strained perspectives of anti-Communism began in the First World War, by keeping a universalistic perspective have harmed the progression to China’s human rights.

America has been a seemingly very promising and prominent country, but it has stopped and is no longer the most powerful country since WWII. They have been the country of the Free World, and have been one of the most powerful leaders in the World’s history. Although America has won most of their wars, and created one of the powerful nations during the four US administrations, their power is subject to be skeptical. They have not been the strongest and a model country, because the way USA policy is detrimental and unstable with how their country turns out to be, when looked upon critically over the three US administrations after World War

  1. How America’s criticism of China’s Communism has directly affected China’s human rights and development and stopped international development and human rights. I will argue that the US critique from assumptions that America is universally the best nation in the world, rather than being a culturally unique and ideal country for the West. Countries do not grow as a state the same way, then why does America model itself as the ideal standard. I will look directly into the relationship of China after the Second World War, while being thorough with Cultural relativism argues that America’s culture and assumptions are relative, not widely-accepted, in the years following the Second World War. I will show how America’s own perceived information regarding the conditions of China, can lead to impulsive short sighted decisions that affect important aspects in China’s human rights and development.

In my argument, I will be talking about how it is detrimental to make the assumptions that America has made for China throughout the 2nd World War. By how assumptions have created a critical barrier to stop and created determinants towards human rights and the existence of Chinese citizens. I will be looking directly into arguments such as, China has no GDP, because they refuse to accept Western ideal of critiques. I will also look into the assumption that

 

because China is communist, their policy is directly detrimental to Chinese citizens. I acknowledge that this is how the twenty-first century turned out, but I am arguing that if America did not have this kind of critique, America would not need to deal with China in both the 2nd World War and the Korean War. This was due to America’s perception of China and how Communism was a bad governmental policy for a country. I will critically analyze using a cultural relativist perspective, as to the flaws with the way that America has chosen to win “their” wars. My argument is based upon the circumstances and the situations that China has been put under when they were considered a new country. This is critical because there was no political uprising from the creation of the People Republic of China. I will argue a more in depth analysis about the circumstances after World War II and philosophical theories that may have contributed to the construction of China and how America’s quick assumptions and demonization have created issues for structural progression, even in regards to human rights.

As human rights is an issue for many countries, the basis of continual human rights is in the United Nations Declaration of Human rights. The United Nations human rights are defined as rights given to everyone, because they are human (Universal Human Rights, 1998). For the sake of this argument, I will be arguing that certain rights, which are given without discrimination, are being denied because a country’s status and support is not fulfilled and thus causing issues towards building a secure and stable economy. I will be arguing in relationship to China-

American relationship and how denial of support due to the fact that America has an

 

anti-Communist policy at the time, greatly affecting China’s ability to rebuild itself as a country, after the Second World War.

Cultural Relativism

 

Cultural relativism is an important aspect towards understanding this relationship between China and America. I am not arguing that Cultural relativism is the absolute criteria for any other country, but a more expanded criteria to understand the circumstances of China, following the Second World War. America, as a Western nation, took part and won World War II, making it a country who is superior to the East or Asian countries. Cultural relativism is defined as having norms and realities that exist subjected to a certain culture, and by which there are no universal norms that people are held to (Beghramin, 2015). For the sake of this argument, I am assuming that there is a certain degree of understanding for a culture, to judge another country based on their own subjective criteria. It is immoral, but has held and stopped international affairs with China. I acknowledge that there are certain universal morals, but I will be evaluating them based on the circumstances of how China dealt with communism and their basis of subjective and societal morals are more cultural relative and bound.

Historical Overview

 

America, during Eisenhower’s administration, was trying to recover from the Second World War. At this time, their political views were swayed to secure that Communism would not create America’s perspectives. Eisenhower initially stated that he would not sign or endorse a multinational human rights treaty (Donnelly, 2017, 366). Furthermore, this is what led to how the Bricker Amendment that stopped the Americans from taking up civil and political human rights or foreign influence (Kaufman, et al. 1988, 309). The main issue of both Communism in international affairs and preventing the basic human rights in the American congress was because of the Bricker Amendment (Donnelly, 2017, 366). The Bricker Amendment was considered to deter from what Americans viewed as “back-door Communism”(Kaufman, et al.

1988, 310).The self-proclaimed leader of the free world was acting as if human rights concerns

 

were undermined by the attack of Communism from the Soviet Russia (2017). For America, it was seemingly that to be anti-communist and anti-human rights and anti-international influence was subjected.

America’s room for anti-Communism is clear throughout the information provided.

 

America’s perspective for this kind of thinking has been demonized since the First World War. Communism/Socialism is a bad ideology and using it on a political level will never progress a country, while suspecting those Communist perspectives (W. H. D. R, 1948, 440). My perspective is not that Communism is the best approach to creating a country, my concern is when you put all proposed legislation and propositions, in a Federal senate, to a demonized Communist ideal just too legally and unanimously dismiss it.

China was more of a country trying to create good profit, although China was solely based upon a Communist margin, there were logical issues that constrained China due to a constant civil war that enveloped a country. While China was confronted with a civil war that desecrated the country, with constant civil war for power between countries, they still had to fight in the new World War, the second. I am not saying that these restrains or cultural relativism are any excuse to allow China to do whatever they wanted, but this is what Chairman Mao thought was right, in the given context, and by creating distant relationships with America greatly affected how China grew as a country (Pauly, 2012, 829). As China faced its greatest challenges as a nation, unsure whether they were to assert a Communism country, based upon many drastically different politics that enveloped China during the end of the Kuomintang Government, played a significant role in how China was to be rebuilt (Hookham, 1979, 170).

The wars that happened after the Kuomintang government was mainly because of two ideological giants that existed (Anstey, 1987, 316). The Communist Party of China was more of

 

a balance between the Russian and the America’s ideologies. With China having their own civil war of many different politics, Japanese people sat back and invaded China many times to gain power over China or at least assert a better relationship directly with the Chinese government (Civil War in China, 1924, 527). It was only then, that the constant struggle for a nation, China, became an issue for American politics.

With China under drastic disarray, due to the Kuomintang government, Peking government, Chairman Mao’s new Communism, Japanese people, and even the people uprising and using coup d’état as a way for Capitalist revolutions, China was certainly bound and constant civil war to a degree that is unimaginable (1924). America used this communist idea, their own perceived idea of Communism, that influenced countries like China and Russia’s ideal, and believed it would take over their country (Kaufman, 1988, 310). For America, Communism ideals were distraught and only could harm the country, even though China and Russia as a state have both succeeded through civil war.

In China’s defense against the use of America’s anti-Communism, I would argue Maslow’ Hierarchy of Needs would be relevant for the development of China without American influence of anti-Communism, as to why Cultural relativism is relevant to the evaluation of China’s crisis (Johns, 2017). I am not saying that China did everything right and ethically correct, but due to Nixon’s presidential system and international affairs, that was China’s only option. I would argue being able to build a country in relevance with the Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is based upon a socio-psychology that defines the satisfaction of moving up the ladder of growth in an individual. The layers of the pyramid begins with Psychological – the sleep, rest, food, water, and basic needs that are required for a human being. The next layer is security- whether an individual has the safety, security, money and

 

personal wellness are evaluated at this level of satisfaction. The layer above is love and belonging, the sense of having relationships and how they impact a person. As a country, I can expand these relationships to the state level, because it impacts how a state is going to build itself when it has these levels satisfied. China was not going to take any understanding from Americans, especially when their policy is anti-Communism and their presidents were very

anti-Communist. This is why a heavier evaluation is required to understand a nation that is completely different from America. China was still building its own ability to supply water, food, basic security for their citizens.

To assume that a certain political structure was enough to be a part of the international community is irrelevant. Assuming to disregard China as an insufficient nation is like saying that to judge another person’s ability, disregarding the context of how they are, and the situation they were in to be politically capable is not an appropriate criteria. America’s assumptions and judgements can be equivalent to saying that they can hate other nations just because of what they think they believe. Let us assume a hypothetical, looking at Freedom of Speech. Let us also assume three different people. Two people at the national airport terminal. He is with his colleague chatting about an issue at work. The third person would sit back and listen to their conversation, named Bob. The two people who are chatting ends up saying a derogatory comment, such as slavery, homophobic, racist or cynical. The only other problem would be that Bob only heard the derogatory comment and nothing else in the conversation. Yet, Bob acts on this cynical ideology and tells a Terminal Special officer about it. To be able to act on this without situation or context would make any conversation very cynical. To think that because you had this idea of a person, because of a comment he said, without context or situation of the conversation, and to act upon this and tell an official because of what Bob thinks, is what is

 

cynical. My point is not that we should not repress phobic language, but without understanding why they talk about it or the context in which they are talking about is toxic. This scenario would be similar to America making assumptions based entirely because of the fact that China has declared itself to be Communist country. China certainly endured many political opinions and was only building itself to be able to handle the growing economy and globalization.

China already resisted the capitalist theory, Japanese rule, Chinese dynasties rule, and

 

far-right wing thinkers. China has already been brought back down to the bare minimum of what they had, due to all this fighting and a coup d’état, and whether it was sure going to be successful because of a communist ideal. For China to be able to develop a country to prosper so they can be concerned with other issues would be relevant to Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. China also went through a famine for a segment of time, where even the basic levels of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs were affected (Johns, 2017). Therefore, having an understanding over a more thorough understanding of the issues that countries have had to deal with, which was cultural relativism and understanding why this was a problem. I am not saying that Cultural Relativism is an excuse for China’s actions and human rights violations, but when America begins to ignore another country based on what they think to be the conclusion of their political view and disregard them as so, which creates foundations for political and civil human rights violations.

How America created issues for China’s human rights. (Argument) In contemporary China, China was already having a war for what is now called People’s Republic of China. Despite all these attacks on China’s land to occupy, there were many distinct political changes. China was trying to change from a democratic to a communist ideological country, due to the change in government and the civil wars that were led from Japan after the First World War (Donnelly, 2007). At the same time, America was giving Turkey and Greece financial aid,

 

although they both have had civil wars that changed their respective governments (Merrill, 2006, 32). After the Tiananmen Square incident, China was evidently in killing their citizens, but America themselves stopped financial support for China’s actions (Donnelly, 2007). American initially stopped their funding, due to China’s action in the Tiananmen Square incident, but it was evident that it was also because China was communist. Greece and Turkey stayed away from a communist government rule, but America was still giving funding to China with Greece and Turkey. I am not saying that because America’s direct financial funding has affected China’s human rights, but it certainly played a role in denying China’s ability to build their country, then form proper policies for ensuring human rights. In relationship with Maslow’s Hierarchy, if a country cannot have food, water, or the basic security as a nation, they cannot build on aspects for self-actualizing and optimal qualities. Self-actualizing as in securing the demands of other nations’ through the United Nations councils, for example the human rights that grant every person in a state political, social and financial rights. Although human rights in China was a violation in 1949, the constant struggle trying to change ideologies after a civil war is evident in holding a country back from building a nation functional with human rights (2007). I am not arguing to excuse China for any of the atrocities committed, but if America was consistent with their support with nations, then there could have been better foreign relationships and negotiations to help build China’s human rights platforms. America and being one of the permanent members of the United Nations does play a big role in decision making towards China and building from its ideological and civil war (2007).

For the uses of Cultural relativism, it would change how America is looked at, as being the highest standard of morals (Kaufman et al. 1988, 309). America is using a universalism approach to critique China’s morals based upon what they believe are justified. This is why

 

America should have judged China’s actions on a more cultural relativist approach, rather than denying proper relationships based on what China says is Communism. I am not saying that cultural relativism is the greatest philosophical theory, I am arguing that China would be analyzed with a more understanding approach.

In the Asian values argument, Donnelly talks about how cultural relativism arguments are contingent and consistent to their specific cultures. He argues how the cultural relativist approach is inconsistent with their Asian values argument. He argues cultures have always changed and configured itself to what is relevant to current day societies, for example democracy and adequate governments. He argues that if Asians do something different back in the day, that Asians do not wish to change that they do now (Donnelly, 2007, 163).

My Asian values’ argument is not that cultures and human rights abuses are excused because they are of different cultures. My argument is that cultures can judge themselves, due to understanding of context and situation that culture is dealing with, rather than having other countries judge them based on universalistic approach. By having a West meets East argument of critiquing and judging each other’s leaders on the decisions they make, they make West look like the moral and cultural superior ones. Since Western countries think that Communism has affected them detrimentally. America’s universalism approach to Communism is a human rights’ hazard. My argument is more formulated on the premise that countries should be able to judge themselves, because they understand the situation, circumstance and how they are, rather than having countries use a Universalist approach to judge each other, disregarding a country’s critical problem. Because of Communism, America saw a need to contain it and ward against it. Cultural relativism is not excusing China for human rights violations, it is expanding America’s ability to critique and make judgements based on their perspectives.

 

In conclusion, I have looked at America’s perspective of anti-Communism, how

 

anti-communism was created and how taking a more cultural relativist perspective can change their analysis of China. Although these strained perspectives of anti-Communism began in the First World War, by keeping a universalistic perspective have harmed the progression to China’s human rights.

America has been a seemingly very promising and prominent country, but it has stopped and is no longer the most powerful country since WWII. They have been the country of the Free World, and have been one of the most powerful leaders in the World’s history. Although America has won most of their wars, and created one of the powerful nations during the four US administrations, their power is subject to be skeptical. They have not been the strongest and a model country, because the way USA policy is detrimental and unstable with how their country turns out to be, when looked upon critically over the three US administrations after World War

  1. How America’s criticism of China’s Communism has directly affected China’s human rights and development and stopped international development and human rights. I will argue that the US critique from assumptions that America is universally the best nation in the world, rather than being a culturally unique and ideal country for the West. Countries do not grow as a state the same way, then why does America model itself as the ideal standard. I will look directly into the relationship of China after the Second World War, while being thorough with Cultural relativism argues that America’s culture and assumptions are relative, not widely-accepted, in the years following the Second World War. I will show how America’s own perceived information regarding the conditions of China, can lead to impulsive short sighted decisions that affect important aspects in China’s human rights and development.

In my argument, I will be talking about how it is detrimental to make the assumptions that America has made for China throughout the 2nd World War. By how assumptions have created a critical barrier to stop and created determinants towards human rights and the existence of Chinese citizens. I will be looking directly into arguments such as, China has no GDP, because they refuse to accept Western ideal of critiques. I will also look into the assumption that

 

because China is communist, their policy is directly detrimental to Chinese citizens. I acknowledge that this is how the twenty-first century turned out, but I am arguing that if America did not have this kind of critique, America would not need to deal with China in both the 2nd World War and the Korean War. This was due to America’s perception of China and how Communism was a bad governmental policy for a country. I will critically analyze using a cultural relativist perspective, as to the flaws with the way that America has chosen to win “their” wars. My argument is based upon the circumstances and the situations that China has been put under when they were considered a new country. This is critical because there was no political uprising from the creation of the People Republic of China. I will argue a more in depth analysis about the circumstances after World War II and philosophical theories that may have contributed to the construction of China and how America’s quick assumptions and demonization have created issues for structural progression, even in regards to human rights.

As human rights is an issue for many countries, the basis of continual human rights is in the United Nations Declaration of Human rights. The United Nations human rights are defined as rights given to everyone, because they are human (Universal Human Rights, 1998). For the sake of this argument, I will be arguing that certain rights, which are given without discrimination, are being denied because a country’s status and support is not fulfilled and thus causing issues towards building a secure and stable economy. I will be arguing in relationship to China-

American relationship and how denial of support due to the fact that America has an

 

anti-Communist policy at the time, greatly affecting China’s ability to rebuild itself as a country, after the Second World War.

Cultural Relativism

 

Cultural relativism is an important aspect towards understanding this relationship between China and America. I am not arguing that Cultural relativism is the absolute criteria for any other country, but a more expanded criteria to understand the circumstances of China, following the Second World War. America, as a Western nation, took part and won World War II, making it a country who is superior to the East or Asian countries. Cultural relativism is defined as having norms and realities that exist subjected to a certain culture, and by which there are no universal norms that people are held to (Beghramin, 2015). For the sake of this argument, I am assuming that there is a certain degree of understanding for a culture, to judge another country based on their own subjective criteria. It is immoral, but has held and stopped international affairs with China. I acknowledge that there are certain universal morals, but I will be evaluating them based on the circumstances of how China dealt with communism and their basis of subjective and societal morals are more cultural relative and bound.

Historical Overview

 

America, during Eisenhower’s administration, was trying to recover from the Second World War. At this time, their political views were swayed to secure that Communism would not create America’s perspectives. Eisenhower initially stated that he would not sign or endorse a multinational human rights treaty (Donnelly, 2017, 366). Furthermore, this is what led to how the Bricker Amendment that stopped the Americans from taking up civil and political human rights or foreign influence (Kaufman, et al. 1988, 309). The main issue of both Communism in international affairs and preventing the basic human rights in the American congress was because of the Bricker Amendment (Donnelly, 2017, 366). The Bricker Amendment was considered to deter from what Americans viewed as “back-door Communism”(Kaufman, et al.

1988, 310).The self-proclaimed leader of the free world was acting as if human rights concerns

 

were undermined by the attack of Communism from the Soviet Russia (2017). For America, it was seemingly that to be anti-communist and anti-human rights and anti-international influence was subjected.

America’s room for anti-Communism is clear throughout the information provided.

 

America’s perspective for this kind of thinking has been demonized since the First World War. Communism/Socialism is a bad ideology and using it on a political level will never progress a country, while suspecting those Communist perspectives (W. H. D. R, 1948, 440). My perspective is not that Communism is the best approach to creating a country, my concern is when you put all proposed legislation and propositions, in a Federal senate, to a demonized Communist ideal just too legally and unanimously dismiss it.

China was more of a country trying to create good profit, although China was solely based upon a Communist margin, there were logical issues that constrained China due to a constant civil war that enveloped a country. While China was confronted with a civil war that desecrated the country, with constant civil war for power between countries, they still had to fight in the new World War, the second. I am not saying that these restrains or cultural relativism are any excuse to allow China to do whatever they wanted, but this is what Chairman Mao thought was right, in the given context, and by creating distant relationships with America greatly affected how China grew as a country (Pauly, 2012, 829). As China faced its greatest challenges as a nation, unsure whether they were to assert a Communism country, based upon many drastically different politics that enveloped China during the end of the Kuomintang Government, played a significant role in how China was to be rebuilt (Hookham, 1979, 170).

The wars that happened after the Kuomintang government was mainly because of two ideological giants that existed (Anstey, 1987, 316). The Communist Party of China was more of

 

a balance between the Russian and the America’s ideologies. With China having their own civil war of many different politics, Japanese people sat back and invaded China many times to gain power over China or at least assert a better relationship directly with the Chinese government (Civil War in China, 1924, 527). It was only then, that the constant struggle for a nation, China, became an issue for American politics.

With China under drastic disarray, due to the Kuomintang government, Peking government, Chairman Mao’s new Communism, Japanese people, and even the people uprising and using coup d’état as a way for Capitalist revolutions, China was certainly bound and constant civil war to a degree that is unimaginable (1924). America used this communist idea, their own perceived idea of Communism, that influenced countries like China and Russia’s ideal, and believed it would take over their country (Kaufman, 1988, 310). For America, Communism ideals were distraught and only could harm the country, even though China and Russia as a state have both succeeded through civil war.

In China’s defense against the use of America’s anti-Communism, I would argue Maslow’ Hierarchy of Needs would be relevant for the development of China without American influence of anti-Communism, as to why Cultural relativism is relevant to the evaluation of China’s crisis (Johns, 2017). I am not saying that China did everything right and ethically correct, but due to Nixon’s presidential system and international affairs, that was China’s only option. I would argue being able to build a country in relevance with the Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is based upon a socio-psychology that defines the satisfaction of moving up the ladder of growth in an individual. The layers of the pyramid begins with Psychological – the sleep, rest, food, water, and basic needs that are required for a human being. The next layer is security- whether an individual has the safety, security, money and

 

personal wellness are evaluated at this level of satisfaction. The layer above is love and belonging, the sense of having relationships and how they impact a person. As a country, I can expand these relationships to the state level, because it impacts how a state is going to build itself when it has these levels satisfied. China was not going to take any understanding from Americans, especially when their policy is anti-Communism and their presidents were very

anti-Communist. This is why a heavier evaluation is required to understand a nation that is completely different from America. China was still building its own ability to supply water, food, basic security for their citizens.

To assume that a certain political structure was enough to be a part of the international community is irrelevant. Assuming to disregard China as an insufficient nation is like saying that to judge another person’s ability, disregarding the context of how they are, and the situation they were in to be politically capable is not an appropriate criteria. America’s assumptions and judgements can be equivalent to saying that they can hate other nations just because of what they think they believe. Let us assume a hypothetical, looking at Freedom of Speech. Let us also assume three different people. Two people at the national airport terminal. He is with his colleague chatting about an issue at work. The third person would sit back and listen to their conversation, named Bob. The two people who are chatting ends up saying a derogatory comment, such as slavery, homophobic, racist or cynical. The only other problem would be that Bob only heard the derogatory comment and nothing else in the conversation. Yet, Bob acts on this cynical ideology and tells a Terminal Special officer about it. To be able to act on this without situation or context would make any conversation very cynical. To think that because you had this idea of a person, because of a comment he said, without context or situation of the conversation, and to act upon this and tell an official because of what Bob thinks, is what is

 

cynical. My point is not that we should not repress phobic language, but without understanding why they talk about it or the context in which they are talking about is toxic. This scenario would be similar to America making assumptions based entirely because of the fact that China has declared itself to be Communist country. China certainly endured many political opinions and was only building itself to be able to handle the growing economy and globalization.

China already resisted the capitalist theory, Japanese rule, Chinese dynasties rule, and

 

far-right wing thinkers. China has already been brought back down to the bare minimum of what they had, due to all this fighting and a coup d’état, and whether it was sure going to be successful because of a communist ideal. For China to be able to develop a country to prosper so they can be concerned with other issues would be relevant to Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. China also went through a famine for a segment of time, where even the basic levels of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs were affected (Johns, 2017). Therefore, having an understanding over a more thorough understanding of the issues that countries have had to deal with, which was cultural relativism and understanding why this was a problem. I am not saying that Cultural Relativism is an excuse for China’s actions and human rights violations, but when America begins to ignore another country based on what they think to be the conclusion of their political view and disregard them as so, which creates foundations for political and civil human rights violations.

How America created issues for China’s human rights. (Argument) In contemporary China, China was already having a war for what is now called People’s Republic of China. Despite all these attacks on China’s land to occupy, there were many distinct political changes. China was trying to change from a democratic to a communist ideological country, due to the change in government and the civil wars that were led from Japan after the First World War (Donnelly, 2007). At the same time, America was giving Turkey and Greece financial aid,

 

although they both have had civil wars that changed their respective governments (Merrill, 2006, 32). After the Tiananmen Square incident, China was evidently in killing their citizens, but America themselves stopped financial support for China’s actions (Donnelly, 2007). American initially stopped their funding, due to China’s action in the Tiananmen Square incident, but it was evident that it was also because China was communist. Greece and Turkey stayed away from a communist government rule, but America was still giving funding to China with Greece and Turkey. I am not saying that because America’s direct financial funding has affected China’s human rights, but it certainly played a role in denying China’s ability to build their country, then form proper policies for ensuring human rights. In relationship with Maslow’s Hierarchy, if a country cannot have food, water, or the basic security as a nation, they cannot build on aspects for self-actualizing and optimal qualities. Self-actualizing as in securing the demands of other nations’ through the United Nations councils, for example the human rights that grant every person in a state political, social and financial rights. Although human rights in China was a violation in 1949, the constant struggle trying to change ideologies after a civil war is evident in holding a country back from building a nation functional with human rights (2007). I am not arguing to excuse China for any of the atrocities committed, but if America was consistent with their support with nations, then there could have been better foreign relationships and negotiations to help build China’s human rights platforms. America and being one of the permanent members of the United Nations does play a big role in decision making towards China and building from its ideological and civil war (2007).

For the uses of Cultural relativism, it would change how America is looked at, as being the highest standard of morals (Kaufman et al. 1988, 309). America is using a universalism approach to critique China’s morals based upon what they believe are justified. This is why

 

America should have judged China’s actions on a more cultural relativist approach, rather than denying proper relationships based on what China says is Communism. I am not saying that cultural relativism is the greatest philosophical theory, I am arguing that China would be analyzed with a more understanding approach.

In the Asian values argument, Donnelly talks about how cultural relativism arguments are contingent and consistent to their specific cultures. He argues how the cultural relativist approach is inconsistent with their Asian values argument. He argues cultures have always changed and configured itself to what is relevant to current day societies, for example democracy and adequate governments. He argues that if Asians do something different back in the day, that Asians do not wish to change that they do now (Donnelly, 2007, 163).

My Asian values’ argument is not that cultures and human rights abuses are excused because they are of different cultures. My argument is that cultures can judge themselves, due to understanding of context and situation that culture is dealing with, rather than having other countries judge them based on universalistic approach. By having a West meets East argument of critiquing and judging each other’s leaders on the decisions they make, they make West look like the moral and cultural superior ones. Since Western countries think that Communism has affected them detrimentally. America’s universalism approach to Communism is a human rights’ hazard. My argument is more formulated on the premise that countries should be able to judge themselves, because they understand the situation, circumstance and how they are, rather than having countries use a Universalist approach to judge each other, disregarding a country’s critical problem. Because of Communism, America saw a need to contain it and ward against it. Cultural relativism is not excusing China for human rights violations, it is expanding America’s ability to critique and make judgements based on their perspectives.

 

In conclusion, I have looked at America’s perspective of anti-Communism, how

 

anti-communism was created and how taking a more cultural relativist perspective can change their analysis of China. Although these strained perspectives of anti-Communism began in the First World War, by keeping a universalistic perspective have harmed the progression to China’s human rights.

America has been a seemingly very promising and prominent country, but it has stopped and is no longer the most powerful country since WWII. They have been the country of the Free World, and have been one of the most powerful leaders in the World’s history. Although America has won most of their wars, and created one of the powerful nations during the four US administrations, their power is subject to be skeptical. They have not been the strongest and a model country, because the way USA policy is detrimental and unstable with how their country turns out to be, when looked upon critically over the three US administrations after World War

  1. How America’s criticism of China’s Communism has directly affected China’s human rights and development and stopped international development and human rights. I will argue that the US critique from assumptions that America is universally the best nation in the world, rather than being a culturally unique and ideal country for the West. Countries do not grow as a state the same way, then why does America model itself as the ideal standard. I will look directly into the relationship of China after the Second World War, while being thorough with Cultural relativism argues that America’s culture and assumptions are relative, not widely-accepted, in the years following the Second World War. I will show how America’s own perceived information regarding the conditions of China, can lead to impulsive short sighted decisions that affect important aspects in China’s human rights and development.

In my argument, I will be talking about how it is detrimental to make the assumptions that America has made for China throughout the 2nd World War. By how assumptions have created a critical barrier to stop and created determinants towards human rights and the existence of Chinese citizens. I will be looking directly into arguments such as, China has no GDP, because they refuse to accept Western ideal of critiques. I will also look into the assumption that

 

because China is communist, their policy is directly detrimental to Chinese citizens. I acknowledge that this is how the twenty-first century turned out, but I am arguing that if America did not have this kind of critique, America would not need to deal with China in both the 2nd World War and the Korean War. This was due to America’s perception of China and how Communism was a bad governmental policy for a country. I will critically analyze using a cultural relativist perspective, as to the flaws with the way that America has chosen to win “their” wars. My argument is based upon the circumstances and the situations that China has been put under when they were considered a new country. This is critical because there was no political uprising from the creation of the People Republic of China. I will argue a more in depth analysis about the circumstances after World War II and philosophical theories that may have contributed to the construction of China and how America’s quick assumptions and demonization have created issues for structural progression, even in regards to human rights.

As human rights is an issue for many countries, the basis of continual human rights is in the United Nations Declaration of Human rights. The United Nations human rights are defined as rights given to everyone, because they are human (Universal Human Rights, 1998). For the sake of this argument, I will be arguing that certain rights, which are given without discrimination, are being denied because a country’s status and support is not fulfilled and thus causing issues towards building a secure and stable economy. I will be arguing in relationship to China-

American relationship and how denial of support due to the fact that America has an

 

anti-Communist policy at the time, greatly affecting China’s ability to rebuild itself as a country, after the Second World War.

Cultural Relativism

 

Cultural relativism is an important aspect towards understanding this relationship between China and America. I am not arguing that Cultural relativism is the absolute criteria for any other country, but a more expanded criteria to understand the circumstances of China, following the Second World War. America, as a Western nation, took part and won World War II, making it a country who is superior to the East or Asian countries. Cultural relativism is defined as having norms and realities that exist subjected to a certain culture, and by which there are no universal norms that people are held to (Beghramin, 2015). For the sake of this argument, I am assuming that there is a certain degree of understanding for a culture, to judge another country based on their own subjective criteria. It is immoral, but has held and stopped international affairs with China. I acknowledge that there are certain universal morals, but I will be evaluating them based on the circumstances of how China dealt with communism and their basis of subjective and societal morals are more cultural relative and bound.

Historical Overview

 

America, during Eisenhower’s administration, was trying to recover from the Second World War. At this time, their political views were swayed to secure that Communism would not create America’s perspectives. Eisenhower initially stated that he would not sign or endorse a multinational human rights treaty (Donnelly, 2017, 366). Furthermore, this is what led to how the Bricker Amendment that stopped the Americans from taking up civil and political human rights or foreign influence (Kaufman, et al. 1988, 309). The main issue of both Communism in international affairs and preventing the basic human rights in the American congress was because of the Bricker Amendment (Donnelly, 2017, 366). The Bricker Amendment was considered to deter from what Americans viewed as “back-door Communism”(Kaufman, et al.

1988, 310).The self-proclaimed leader of the free world was acting as if human rights concerns

 

were undermined by the attack of Communism from the Soviet Russia (2017). For America, it was seemingly that to be anti-communist and anti-human rights and anti-international influence was subjected.

America’s room for anti-Communism is clear throughout the information provided.

 

America’s perspective for this kind of thinking has been demonized since the First World War. Communism/Socialism is a bad ideology and using it on a political level will never progress a country, while suspecting those Communist perspectives (W. H. D. R, 1948, 440). My perspective is not that Communism is the best approach to creating a country, my concern is when you put all proposed legislation and propositions, in a Federal senate, to a demonized Communist ideal just too legally and unanimously dismiss it.

China was more of a country trying to create good profit, although China was solely based upon a Communist margin, there were logical issues that constrained China due to a constant civil war that enveloped a country. While China was confronted with a civil war that desecrated the country, with constant civil war for power between countries, they still had to fight in the new World War, the second. I am not saying that these restrains or cultural relativism are any excuse to allow China to do whatever they wanted, but this is what Chairman Mao thought was right, in the given context, and by creating distant relationships with America greatly affected how China grew as a country (Pauly, 2012, 829). As China faced its greatest challenges as a nation, unsure whether they were to assert a Communism country, based upon many drastically different politics that enveloped China during the end of the Kuomintang Government, played a significant role in how China was to be rebuilt (Hookham, 1979, 170).

The wars that happened after the Kuomintang government was mainly because of two ideological giants that existed (Anstey, 1987, 316). The Communist Party of China was more of

 

a balance between the Russian and the America’s ideologies. With China having their own civil war of many different politics, Japanese people sat back and invaded China many times to gain power over China or at least assert a better relationship directly with the Chinese government (Civil War in China, 1924, 527). It was only then, that the constant struggle for a nation, China, became an issue for American politics.

With China under drastic disarray, due to the Kuomintang government, Peking government, Chairman Mao’s new Communism, Japanese people, and even the people uprising and using coup d’état as a way for Capitalist revolutions, China was certainly bound and constant civil war to a degree that is unimaginable (1924). America used this communist idea, their own perceived idea of Communism, that influenced countries like China and Russia’s ideal, and believed it would take over their country (Kaufman, 1988, 310). For America, Communism ideals were distraught and only could harm the country, even though China and Russia as a state have both succeeded through civil war.

In China’s defense against the use of America’s anti-Communism, I would argue Maslow’ Hierarchy of Needs would be relevant for the development of China without American influence of anti-Communism, as to why Cultural relativism is relevant to the evaluation of China’s crisis (Johns, 2017). I am not saying that China did everything right and ethically correct, but due to Nixon’s presidential system and international affairs, that was China’s only option. I would argue being able to build a country in relevance with the Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is based upon a socio-psychology that defines the satisfaction of moving up the ladder of growth in an individual. The layers of the pyramid begins with Psychological – the sleep, rest, food, water, and basic needs that are required for a human being. The next layer is security- whether an individual has the safety, security, money and

 

personal wellness are evaluated at this level of satisfaction. The layer above is love and belonging, the sense of having relationships and how they impact a person. As a country, I can expand these relationships to the state level, because it impacts how a state is going to build itself when it has these levels satisfied. China was not going to take any understanding from Americans, especially when their policy is anti-Communism and their presidents were very

anti-Communist. This is why a heavier evaluation is required to understand a nation that is completely different from America. China was still building its own ability to supply water, food, basic security for their citizens.

To assume that a certain political structure was enough to be a part of the international community is irrelevant. Assuming to disregard China as an insufficient nation is like saying that to judge another person’s ability, disregarding the context of how they are, and the situation they were in to be politically capable is not an appropriate criteria. America’s assumptions and judgements can be equivalent to saying that they can hate other nations just because of what they think they believe. Let us assume a hypothetical, looking at Freedom of Speech. Let us also assume three different people. Two people at the national airport terminal. He is with his colleague chatting about an issue at work. The third person would sit back and listen to their conversation, named Bob. The two people who are chatting ends up saying a derogatory comment, such as slavery, homophobic, racist or cynical. The only other problem would be that Bob only heard the derogatory comment and nothing else in the conversation. Yet, Bob acts on this cynical ideology and tells a Terminal Special officer about it. To be able to act on this without situation or context would make any conversation very cynical. To think that because you had this idea of a person, because of a comment he said, without context or situation of the conversation, and to act upon this and tell an official because of what Bob thinks, is what is

 

cynical. My point is not that we should not repress phobic language, but without understanding why they talk about it or the context in which they are talking about is toxic. This scenario would be similar to America making assumptions based entirely because of the fact that China has declared itself to be Communist country. China certainly endured many political opinions and was only building itself to be able to handle the growing economy and globalization.

China already resisted the capitalist theory, Japanese rule, Chinese dynasties rule, and

 

far-right wing thinkers. China has already been brought back down to the bare minimum of what they had, due to all this fighting and a coup d’état, and whether it was sure going to be successful because of a communist ideal. For China to be able to develop a country to prosper so they can be concerned with other issues would be relevant to Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. China also went through a famine for a segment of time, where even the basic levels of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs were affected (Johns, 2017). Therefore, having an understanding over a more thorough understanding of the issues that countries have had to deal with, which was cultural relativism and understanding why this was a problem. I am not saying that Cultural Relativism is an excuse for China’s actions and human rights violations, but when America begins to ignore another country based on what they think to be the conclusion of their political view and disregard them as so, which creates foundations for political and civil human rights violations.

How America created issues for China’s human rights. (Argument) In contemporary China, China was already having a war for what is now called People’s Republic of China. Despite all these attacks on China’s land to occupy, there were many distinct political changes. China was trying to change from a democratic to a communist ideological country, due to the change in government and the civil wars that were led from Japan after the First World War (Donnelly, 2007). At the same time, America was giving Turkey and Greece financial aid,

 

although they both have had civil wars that changed their respective governments (Merrill, 2006, 32). After the Tiananmen Square incident, China was evidently in killing their citizens, but America themselves stopped financial support for China’s actions (Donnelly, 2007). American initially stopped their funding, due to China’s action in the Tiananmen Square incident, but it was evident that it was also because China was communist. Greece and Turkey stayed away from a communist government rule, but America was still giving funding to China with Greece and Turkey. I am not saying that because America’s direct financial funding has affected China’s human rights, but it certainly played a role in denying China’s ability to build their country, then form proper policies for ensuring human rights. In relationship with Maslow’s Hierarchy, if a country cannot have food, water, or the basic security as a nation, they cannot build on aspects for self-actualizing and optimal qualities. Self-actualizing as in securing the demands of other nations’ through the United Nations councils, for example the human rights that grant every person in a state political, social and financial rights. Although human rights in China was a violation in 1949, the constant struggle trying to change ideologies after a civil war is evident in holding a country back from building a nation functional with human rights (2007). I am not arguing to excuse China for any of the atrocities committed, but if America was consistent with their support with nations, then there could have been better foreign relationships and negotiations to help build China’s human rights platforms. America and being one of the permanent members of the United Nations does play a big role in decision making towards China and building from its ideological and civil war (2007).

For the uses of Cultural relativism, it would change how America is looked at, as being the highest standard of morals (Kaufman et al. 1988, 309). America is using a universalism approach to critique China’s morals based upon what they believe are justified. This is why

 

America should have judged China’s actions on a more cultural relativist approach, rather than denying proper relationships based on what China says is Communism. I am not saying that cultural relativism is the greatest philosophical theory, I am arguing that China would be analyzed with a more understanding approach.

In the Asian values argument, Donnelly talks about how cultural relativism arguments are contingent and consistent to their specific cultures. He argues how the cultural relativist approach is inconsistent with their Asian values argument. He argues cultures have always changed and configured itself to what is relevant to current day societies, for example democracy and adequate governments. He argues that if Asians do something different back in the day, that Asians do not wish to change that they do now (Donnelly, 2007, 163).

My Asian values’ argument is not that cultures and human rights abuses are excused because they are of different cultures. My argument is that cultures can judge themselves, due to understanding of context and situation that culture is dealing with, rather than having other countries judge them based on universalistic approach. By having a West meets East argument of critiquing and judging each other’s leaders on the decisions they make, they make West look like the moral and cultural superior ones. Since Western countries think that Communism has affected them detrimentally. America’s universalism approach to Communism is a human rights’ hazard. My argument is more formulated on the premise that countries should be able to judge themselves, because they understand the situation, circumstance and how they are, rather than having countries use a Universalist approach to judge each other, disregarding a country’s critical problem. Because of Communism, America saw a need to contain it and ward against it. Cultural relativism is not excusing China for human rights violations, it is expanding America’s ability to critique and make judgements based on their perspectives.

 

In conclusion, I have looked at America’s perspective of anti-Communism, how

 

anti-communism was created and how taking a more cultural relativist perspective can change their analysis of China. Although these strained perspectives of anti-Communism began in the First World War, by keeping a universalistic perspective have harmed the progression to China’s human rights.

America has been a seemingly very promising and prominent country, but it has stopped and is no longer the most powerful country since WWII. They have been the country of the Free World, and have been one of the most powerful leaders in the World’s history. Although America has won most of their wars, and created one of the powerful nations during the four US administrations, their power is subject to be skeptical. They have not been the strongest and a model country, because the way USA policy is detrimental and unstable with how their country turns out to be, when looked upon critically over the three US administrations after World War

  1. How America’s criticism of China’s Communism has directly affected China’s human rights and development and stopped international development and human rights. I will argue that the US critique from assumptions that America is universally the best nation in the world, rather than being a culturally unique and ideal country for the West. Countries do not grow as a state the same way, then why does America model itself as the ideal standard. I will look directly into the relationship of China after the Second World War, while being thorough with Cultural relativism argues that America’s culture and assumptions are relative, not widely-accepted, in the years following the Second World War. I will show how America’s own perceived information regarding the conditions of China, can lead to impulsive short sighted decisions that affect important aspects in China’s human rights and development.

In my argument, I will be talking about how it is detrimental to make the assumptions that America has made for China throughout the 2nd World War. By how assumptions have created a critical barrier to stop and created determinants towards human rights and the existence of Chinese citizens. I will be looking directly into arguments such as, China has no GDP, because they refuse to accept Western ideal of critiques. I will also look into the assumption that

 

because China is communist, their policy is directly detrimental to Chinese citizens. I acknowledge that this is how the twenty-first century turned out, but I am arguing that if America did not have this kind of critique, America would not need to deal with China in both the 2nd World War and the Korean War. This was due to America’s perception of China and how Communism was a bad governmental policy for a country. I will critically analyze using a cultural relativist perspective, as to the flaws with the way that America has chosen to win “their” wars. My argument is based upon the circumstances and the situations that China has been put under when they were considered a new country. This is critical because there was no political uprising from the creation of the People Republic of China. I will argue a more in depth analysis about the circumstances after World War II and philosophical theories that may have contributed to the construction of China and how America’s quick assumptions and demonization have created issues for structural progression, even in regards to human rights.

As human rights is an issue for many countries, the basis of continual human rights is in the United Nations Declaration of Human rights. The United Nations human rights are defined as rights given to everyone, because they are human (Universal Human Rights, 1998). For the sake of this argument, I will be arguing that certain rights, which are given without discrimination, are being denied because a country’s status and support is not fulfilled and thus causing issues towards building a secure and stable economy. I will be arguing in relationship to China-

American relationship and how denial of support due to the fact that America has an

 

anti-Communist policy at the time, greatly affecting China’s ability to rebuild itself as a country, after the Second World War.

Cultural Relativism

 

Cultural relativism is an important aspect towards understanding this relationship between China and America. I am not arguing that Cultural relativism is the absolute criteria for any other country, but a more expanded criteria to understand the circumstances of China, following the Second World War. America, as a Western nation, took part and won World War II, making it a country who is superior to the East or Asian countries. Cultural relativism is defined as having norms and realities that exist subjected to a certain culture, and by which there are no universal norms that people are held to (Beghramin, 2015). For the sake of this argument, I am assuming that there is a certain degree of understanding for a culture, to judge another country based on their own subjective criteria. It is immoral, but has held and stopped international affairs with China. I acknowledge that there are certain universal morals, but I will be evaluating them based on the circumstances of how China dealt with communism and their basis of subjective and societal morals are more cultural relative and bound.

Historical Overview

 

America, during Eisenhower’s administration, was trying to recover from the Second World War. At this time, their political views were swayed to secure that Communism would not create America’s perspectives. Eisenhower initially stated that he would not sign or endorse a multinational human rights treaty (Donnelly, 2017, 366). Furthermore, this is what led to how the Bricker Amendment that stopped the Americans from taking up civil and political human rights or foreign influence (Kaufman, et al. 1988, 309). The main issue of both Communism in international affairs and preventing the basic human rights in the American congress was because of the Bricker Amendment (Donnelly, 2017, 366). The Bricker Amendment was considered to deter from what Americans viewed as “back-door Communism”(Kaufman, et al.

1988, 310).The self-proclaimed leader of the free world was acting as if human rights concerns

 

were undermined by the attack of Communism from the Soviet Russia (2017). For America, it was seemingly that to be anti-communist and anti-human rights and anti-international influence was subjected.

America’s room for anti-Communism is clear throughout the information provided.

 

America’s perspective for this kind of thinking has been demonized since the First World War. Communism/Socialism is a bad ideology and using it on a political level will never progress a country, while suspecting those Communist perspectives (W. H. D. R, 1948, 440). My perspective is not that Communism is the best approach to creating a country, my concern is when you put all proposed legislation and propositions, in a Federal senate, to a demonized Communist ideal just too legally and unanimously dismiss it.

China was more of a country trying to create good profit, although China was solely based upon a Communist margin, there were logical issues that constrained China due to a constant civil war that enveloped a country. While China was confronted with a civil war that desecrated the country, with constant civil war for power between countries, they still had to fight in the new World War, the second. I am not saying that these restrains or cultural relativism are any excuse to allow China to do whatever they wanted, but this is what Chairman Mao thought was right, in the given context, and by creating distant relationships with America greatly affected how China grew as a country (Pauly, 2012, 829). As China faced its greatest challenges as a nation, unsure whether they were to assert a Communism country, based upon many drastically different politics that enveloped China during the end of the Kuomintang Government, played a significant role in how China was to be rebuilt (Hookham, 1979, 170).

The wars that happened after the Kuomintang government was mainly because of two ideological giants that existed (Anstey, 1987, 316). The Communist Party of China was more of

 

a balance between the Russian and the America’s ideologies. With China having their own civil war of many different politics, Japanese people sat back and invaded China many times to gain power over China or at least assert a better relationship directly with the Chinese government (Civil War in China, 1924, 527). It was only then, that the constant struggle for a nation, China, became an issue for American politics.

With China under drastic disarray, due to the Kuomintang government, Peking government, Chairman Mao’s new Communism, Japanese people, and even the people uprising and using coup d’état as a way for Capitalist revolutions, China was certainly bound and constant civil war to a degree that is unimaginable (1924). America used this communist idea, their own perceived idea of Communism, that influenced countries like China and Russia’s ideal, and believed it would take over their country (Kaufman, 1988, 310). For America, Communism ideals were distraught and only could harm the country, even though China and Russia as a state have both succeeded through civil war.

In China’s defense against the use of America’s anti-Communism, I would argue Maslow’ Hierarchy of Needs would be relevant for the development of China without American influence of anti-Communism, as to why Cultural relativism is relevant to the evaluation of China’s crisis (Johns, 2017). I am not saying that China did everything right and ethically correct, but due to Nixon’s presidential system and international affairs, that was China’s only option. I would argue being able to build a country in relevance with the Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is based upon a socio-psychology that defines the satisfaction of moving up the ladder of growth in an individual. The layers of the pyramid begins with Psychological – the sleep, rest, food, water, and basic needs that are required for a human being. The next layer is security- whether an individual has the safety, security, money and

 

personal wellness are evaluated at this level of satisfaction. The layer above is love and belonging, the sense of having relationships and how they impact a person. As a country, I can expand these relationships to the state level, because it impacts how a state is going to build itself when it has these levels satisfied. China was not going to take any understanding from Americans, especially when their policy is anti-Communism and their presidents were very

anti-Communist. This is why a heavier evaluation is required to understand a nation that is completely different from America. China was still building its own ability to supply water, food, basic security for their citizens.

To assume that a certain political structure was enough to be a part of the international community is irrelevant. Assuming to disregard China as an insufficient nation is like saying that to judge another person’s ability, disregarding the context of how they are, and the situation they were in to be politically capable is not an appropriate criteria. America’s assumptions and judgements can be equivalent to saying that they can hate other nations just because of what they think they believe. Let us assume a hypothetical, looking at Freedom of Speech. Let us also assume three different people. Two people at the national airport terminal. He is with his colleague chatting about an issue at work. The third person would sit back and listen to their conversation, named Bob. The two people who are chatting ends up saying a derogatory comment, such as slavery, homophobic, racist or cynical. The only other problem would be that Bob only heard the derogatory comment and nothing else in the conversation. Yet, Bob acts on this cynical ideology and tells a Terminal Special officer about it. To be able to act on this without situation or context would make any conversation very cynical. To think that because you had this idea of a person, because of a comment he said, without context or situation of the conversation, and to act upon this and tell an official because of what Bob thinks, is what is

 

cynical. My point is not that we should not repress phobic language, but without understanding why they talk about it or the context in which they are talking about is toxic. This scenario would be similar to America making assumptions based entirely because of the fact that China has declared itself to be Communist country. China certainly endured many political opinions and was only building itself to be able to handle the growing economy and globalization.

China already resisted the capitalist theory, Japanese rule, Chinese dynasties rule, and

 

far-right wing thinkers. China has already been brought back down to the bare minimum of what they had, due to all this fighting and a coup d’état, and whether it was sure going to be successful because of a communist ideal. For China to be able to develop a country to prosper so they can be concerned with other issues would be relevant to Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. China also went through a famine for a segment of time, where even the basic levels of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs were affected (Johns, 2017). Therefore, having an understanding over a more thorough understanding of the issues that countries have had to deal with, which was cultural relativism and understanding why this was a problem. I am not saying that Cultural Relativism is an excuse for China’s actions and human rights violations, but when America begins to ignore another country based on what they think to be the conclusion of their political view and disregard them as so, which creates foundations for political and civil human rights violations.

How America created issues for China’s human rights. (Argument) In contemporary China, China was already having a war for what is now called People’s Republic of China. Despite all these attacks on China’s land to occupy, there were many distinct political changes. China was trying to change from a democratic to a communist ideological country, due to the change in government and the civil wars that were led from Japan after the First World War (Donnelly, 2007). At the same time, America was giving Turkey and Greece financial aid,

 

although they both have had civil wars that changed their respective governments (Merrill, 2006, 32). After the Tiananmen Square incident, China was evidently in killing their citizens, but America themselves stopped financial support for China’s actions (Donnelly, 2007). American initially stopped their funding, due to China’s action in the Tiananmen Square incident, but it was evident that it was also because China was communist. Greece and Turkey stayed away from a communist government rule, but America was still giving funding to China with Greece and Turkey. I am not saying that because America’s direct financial funding has affected China’s human rights, but it certainly played a role in denying China’s ability to build their country, then form proper policies for ensuring human rights. In relationship with Maslow’s Hierarchy, if a country cannot have food, water, or the basic security as a nation, they cannot build on aspects for self-actualizing and optimal qualities. Self-actualizing as in securing the demands of other nations’ through the United Nations councils, for example the human rights that grant every person in a state political, social and financial rights. Although human rights in China was a violation in 1949, the constant struggle trying to change ideologies after a civil war is evident in holding a country back from building a nation functional with human rights (2007). I am not arguing to excuse China for any of the atrocities committed, but if America was consistent with their support with nations, then there could have been better foreign relationships and negotiations to help build China’s human rights platforms. America and being one of the permanent members of the United Nations does play a big role in decision making towards China and building from its ideological and civil war (2007).

For the uses of Cultural relativism, it would change how America is looked at, as being the highest standard of morals (Kaufman et al. 1988, 309). America is using a universalism approach to critique China’s morals based upon what they believe are justified. This is why

 

America should have judged China’s actions on a more cultural relativist approach, rather than denying proper relationships based on what China says is Communism. I am not saying that cultural relativism is the greatest philosophical theory, I am arguing that China would be analyzed with a more understanding approach.

In the Asian values argument, Donnelly talks about how cultural relativism arguments are contingent and consistent to their specific cultures. He argues how the cultural relativist approach is inconsistent with their Asian values argument. He argues cultures have always changed and configured itself to what is relevant to current day societies, for example democracy and adequate governments. He argues that if Asians do something different back in the day, that Asians do not wish to change that they do now (Donnelly, 2007, 163).

My Asian values’ argument is not that cultures and human rights abuses are excused because they are of different cultures. My argument is that cultures can judge themselves, due to understanding of context and situation that culture is dealing with, rather than having other countries judge them based on universalistic approach. By having a West meets East argument of critiquing and judging each other’s leaders on the decisions they make, they make West look like the moral and cultural superior ones. Since Western countries think that Communism has affected them detrimentally. America’s universalism approach to Communism is a human rights’ hazard. My argument is more formulated on the premise that countries should be able to judge themselves, because they understand the situation, circumstance and how they are, rather than having countries use a Universalist approach to judge each other, disregarding a country’s critical problem. Because of Communism, America saw a need to contain it and ward against it. Cultural relativism is not excusing China for human rights violations, it is expanding America’s ability to critique and make judgements based on their perspectives.

 

In conclusion, I have looked at America’s perspective of anti-Communism, how

 

anti-communism was created and how taking a more cultural relativist perspective can change their analysis of China. Although these strained perspectives of anti-Communism began in the First World War, by keeping a universalistic perspective have harmed the progression to China’s human rights.

America has been a seemingly very promising and prominent country, but it has stopped and is no longer the most powerful country since WWII. They have been the country of the Free World, and have been one of the most powerful leaders in the World’s history. Although America has won most of their wars, and created one of the powerful nations during the four US administrations, their power is subject to be skeptical. They have not been the strongest and a model country, because the way USA policy is detrimental and unstable with how their country turns out to be, when looked upon critically over the three US administrations after World War

  1. How America’s criticism of China’s Communism has directly affected China’s human rights and development and stopped international development and human rights. I will argue that the US critique from assumptions that America is universally the best nation in the world, rather than being a culturally unique and ideal country for the West. Countries do not grow as a state the same way, then why does America model itself as the ideal standard. I will look directly into the relationship of China after the Second World War, while being thorough with Cultural relativism argues that America’s culture and assumptions are relative, not widely-accepted, in the years following the Second World War. I will show how America’s own perceived information regarding the conditions of China, can lead to impulsive short sighted decisions that affect important aspects in China’s human rights and development.

In my argument, I will be talking about how it is detrimental to make the assumptions that America has made for China throughout the 2nd World War. By how assumptions have created a critical barrier to stop and created determinants towards human rights and the existence of Chinese citizens. I will be looking directly into arguments such as, China has no GDP, because they refuse to accept Western ideal of critiques. I will also look into the assumption that

 

because China is communist, their policy is directly detrimental to Chinese citizens. I acknowledge that this is how the twenty-first century turned out, but I am arguing that if America did not have this kind of critique, America would not need to deal with China in both the 2nd World War and the Korean War. This was due to America’s perception of China and how Communism was a bad governmental policy for a country. I will critically analyze using a cultural relativist perspective, as to the flaws with the way that America has chosen to win “their” wars. My argument is based upon the circumstances and the situations that China has been put under when they were considered a new country. This is critical because there was no political uprising from the creation of the People Republic of China. I will argue a more in depth analysis about the circumstances after World War II and philosophical theories that may have contributed to the construction of China and how America’s quick assumptions and demonization have created issues for structural progression, even in regards to human rights.

As human rights is an issue for many countries, the basis of continual human rights is in the United Nations Declaration of Human rights. The United Nations human rights are defined as rights given to everyone, because they are human (Universal Human Rights, 1998). For the sake of this argument, I will be arguing that certain rights, which are given without discrimination, are being denied because a country’s status and support is not fulfilled and thus causing issues towards building a secure and stable economy. I will be arguing in relationship to China-

American relationship and how denial of support due to the fact that America has an

 

anti-Communist policy at the time, greatly affecting China’s ability to rebuild itself as a country, after the Second World War.

Cultural Relativism

 

Cultural relativism is an important aspect towards understanding this relationship between China and America. I am not arguing that Cultural relativism is the absolute criteria for any other country, but a more expanded criteria to understand the circumstances of China, following the Second World War. America, as a Western nation, took part and won World War II, making it a country who is superior to the East or Asian countries. Cultural relativism is defined as having norms and realities that exist subjected to a certain culture, and by which there are no universal norms that people are held to (Beghramin, 2015). For the sake of this argument, I am assuming that there is a certain degree of understanding for a culture, to judge another country based on their own subjective criteria. It is immoral, but has held and stopped international affairs with China. I acknowledge that there are certain universal morals, but I will be evaluating them based on the circumstances of how China dealt with communism and their basis of subjective and societal morals are more cultural relative and bound.

Historical Overview

 

America, during Eisenhower’s administration, was trying to recover from the Second World War. At this time, their political views were swayed to secure that Communism would not create America’s perspectives. Eisenhower initially stated that he would not sign or endorse a multinational human rights treaty (Donnelly, 2017, 366). Furthermore, this is what led to how the Bricker Amendment that stopped the Americans from taking up civil and political human rights or foreign influence (Kaufman, et al. 1988, 309). The main issue of both Communism in international affairs and preventing the basic human rights in the American congress was because of the Bricker Amendment (Donnelly, 2017, 366). The Bricker Amendment was considered to deter from what Americans viewed as “back-door Communism”(Kaufman, et al.

1988, 310).The self-proclaimed leader of the free world was acting as if human rights concerns

 

were undermined by the attack of Communism from the Soviet Russia (2017). For America, it was seemingly that to be anti-communist and anti-human rights and anti-international influence was subjected.

America’s room for anti-Communism is clear throughout the information provided.

 

America’s perspective for this kind of thinking has been demonized since the First World War. Communism/Socialism is a bad ideology and using it on a political level will never progress a country, while suspecting those Communist perspectives (W. H. D. R, 1948, 440). My perspective is not that Communism is the best approach to creating a country, my concern is when you put all proposed legislation and propositions, in a Federal senate, to a demonized Communist ideal just too legally and unanimously dismiss it.

China was more of a country trying to create good profit, although China was solely based upon a Communist margin, there were logical issues that constrained China due to a constant civil war that enveloped a country. While China was confronted with a civil war that desecrated the country, with constant civil war for power between countries, they still had to fight in the new World War, the second. I am not saying that these restrains or cultural relativism are any excuse to allow China to do whatever they wanted, but this is what Chairman Mao thought was right, in the given context, and by creating distant relationships with America greatly affected how China grew as a country (Pauly, 2012, 829). As China faced its greatest challenges as a nation, unsure whether they were to assert a Communism country, based upon many drastically different politics that enveloped China during the end of the Kuomintang Government, played a significant role in how China was to be rebuilt (Hookham, 1979, 170).

The wars that happened after the Kuomintang government was mainly because of two ideological giants that existed (Anstey, 1987, 316). The Communist Party of China was more of

 

a balance between the Russian and the America’s ideologies. With China having their own civil war of many different politics, Japanese people sat back and invaded China many times to gain power over China or at least assert a better relationship directly with the Chinese government (Civil War in China, 1924, 527). It was only then, that the constant struggle for a nation, China, became an issue for American politics.

With China under drastic disarray, due to the Kuomintang government, Peking government, Chairman Mao’s new Communism, Japanese people, and even the people uprising and using coup d’état as a way for Capitalist revolutions, China was certainly bound and constant civil war to a degree that is unimaginable (1924). America used this communist idea, their own perceived idea of Communism, that influenced countries like China and Russia’s ideal, and believed it would take over their country (Kaufman, 1988, 310). For America, Communism ideals were distraught and only could harm the country, even though China and Russia as a state have both succeeded through civil war.

In China’s defense against the use of America’s anti-Communism, I would argue Maslow’ Hierarchy of Needs would be relevant for the development of China without American influence of anti-Communism, as to why Cultural relativism is relevant to the evaluation of China’s crisis (Johns, 2017). I am not saying that China did everything right and ethically correct, but due to Nixon’s presidential system and international affairs, that was China’s only option. I would argue being able to build a country in relevance with the Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is based upon a socio-psychology that defines the satisfaction of moving up the ladder of growth in an individual. The layers of the pyramid begins with Psychological – the sleep, rest, food, water, and basic needs that are required for a human being. The next layer is security- whether an individual has the safety, security, money and

 

personal wellness are evaluated at this level of satisfaction. The layer above is love and belonging, the sense of having relationships and how they impact a person. As a country, I can expand these relationships to the state level, because it impacts how a state is going to build itself when it has these levels satisfied. China was not going to take any understanding from Americans, especially when their policy is anti-Communism and their presidents were very

anti-Communist. This is why a heavier evaluation is required to understand a nation that is completely different from America. China was still building its own ability to supply water, food, basic security for their citizens.

To assume that a certain political structure was enough to be a part of the international community is irrelevant. Assuming to disregard China as an insufficient nation is like saying that to judge another person’s ability, disregarding the context of how they are, and the situation they were in to be politically capable is not an appropriate criteria. America’s assumptions and judgements can be equivalent to saying that they can hate other nations just because of what they think they believe. Let us assume a hypothetical, looking at Freedom of Speech. Let us also assume three different people. Two people at the national airport terminal. He is with his colleague chatting about an issue at work. The third person would sit back and listen to their conversation, named Bob. The two people who are chatting ends up saying a derogatory comment, such as slavery, homophobic, racist or cynical. The only other problem would be that Bob only heard the derogatory comment and nothing else in the conversation. Yet, Bob acts on this cynical ideology and tells a Terminal Special officer about it. To be able to act on this without situation or context would make any conversation very cynical. To think that because you had this idea of a person, because of a comment he said, without context or situation of the conversation, and to act upon this and tell an official because of what Bob thinks, is what is

 

cynical. My point is not that we should not repress phobic language, but without understanding why they talk about it or the context in which they are talking about is toxic. This scenario would be similar to America making assumptions based entirely because of the fact that China has declared itself to be Communist country. China certainly endured many political opinions and was only building itself to be able to handle the growing economy and globalization.

China already resisted the capitalist theory, Japanese rule, Chinese dynasties rule, and

 

far-right wing thinkers. China has already been brought back down to the bare minimum of what they had, due to all this fighting and a coup d’état, and whether it was sure going to be successful because of a communist ideal. For China to be able to develop a country to prosper so they can be concerned with other issues would be relevant to Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. China also went through a famine for a segment of time, where even the basic levels of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs were affected (Johns, 2017). Therefore, having an understanding over a more thorough understanding of the issues that countries have had to deal with, which was cultural relativism and understanding why this was a problem. I am not saying that Cultural Relativism is an excuse for China’s actions and human rights violations, but when America begins to ignore another country based on what they think to be the conclusion of their political view and disregard them as so, which creates foundations for political and civil human rights violations.

How America created issues for China’s human rights. (Argument) In contemporary China, China was already having a war for what is now called People’s Republic of China. Despite all these attacks on China’s land to occupy, there were many distinct political changes. China was trying to change from a democratic to a communist ideological country, due to the change in government and the civil wars that were led from Japan after the First World War (Donnelly, 2007). At the same time, America was giving Turkey and Greece financial aid,

 

although they both have had civil wars that changed their respective governments (Merrill, 2006, 32). After the Tiananmen Square incident, China was evidently in killing their citizens, but America themselves stopped financial support for China’s actions (Donnelly, 2007). American initially stopped their funding, due to China’s action in the Tiananmen Square incident, but it was evident that it was also because China was communist. Greece and Turkey stayed away from a communist government rule, but America was still giving funding to China with Greece and Turkey. I am not saying that because America’s direct financial funding has affected China’s human rights, but it certainly played a role in denying China’s ability to build their country, then form proper policies for ensuring human rights. In relationship with Maslow’s Hierarchy, if a country cannot have food, water, or the basic security as a nation, they cannot build on aspects for self-actualizing and optimal qualities. Self-actualizing as in securing the demands of other nations’ through the United Nations councils, for example the human rights that grant every person in a state political, social and financial rights. Although human rights in China was a violation in 1949, the constant struggle trying to change ideologies after a civil war is evident in holding a country back from building a nation functional with human rights (2007). I am not arguing to excuse China for any of the atrocities committed, but if America was consistent with their support with nations, then there could have been better foreign relationships and negotiations to help build China’s human rights platforms. America and being one of the permanent members of the United Nations does play a big role in decision making towards China and building from its ideological and civil war (2007).

For the uses of Cultural relativism, it would change how America is looked at, as being the highest standard of morals (Kaufman et al. 1988, 309). America is using a universalism approach to critique China’s morals based upon what they believe are justified. This is why

 

America should have judged China’s actions on a more cultural relativist approach, rather than denying proper relationships based on what China says is Communism. I am not saying that cultural relativism is the greatest philosophical theory, I am arguing that China would be analyzed with a more understanding approach.

In the Asian values argument, Donnelly talks about how cultural relativism arguments are contingent and consistent to their specific cultures. He argues how the cultural relativist approach is inconsistent with their Asian values argument. He argues cultures have always changed and configured itself to what is relevant to current day societies, for example democracy and adequate governments. He argues that if Asians do something different back in the day, that Asians do not wish to change that they do now (Donnelly, 2007, 163).

My Asian values’ argument is not that cultures and human rights abuses are excused because they are of different cultures. My argument is that cultures can judge themselves, due to understanding of context and situation that culture is dealing with, rather than having other countries judge them based on universalistic approach. By having a West meets East argument of critiquing and judging each other’s leaders on the decisions they make, they make West look like the moral and cultural superior ones. Since Western countries think that Communism has affected them detrimentally. America’s universalism approach to Communism is a human rights’ hazard. My argument is more formulated on the premise that countries should be able to judge themselves, because they understand the situation, circumstance and how they are, rather than having countries use a Universalist approach to judge each other, disregarding a country’s critical problem. Because of Communism, America saw a need to contain it and ward against it. Cultural relativism is not excusing China for human rights violations, it is expanding America’s ability to critique and make judgements based on their perspectives.

 

In conclusion, I have looked at America’s perspective of anti-Communism, how

 

anti-communism was created and how taking a more cultural relativist perspective can change their analysis of China. Although these strained perspectives of anti-Communism began in the First World War, by keeping a universalistic perspective have harmed the progression to China’s human rights.

America has been a seemingly very promising and prominent country, but it has stopped and is no longer the most powerful country since WWII. They have been the country of the Free World, and have been one of the most powerful leaders in the World’s history. Although America has won most of their wars, and created one of the powerful nations during the four US administrations, their power is subject to be skeptical. They have not been the strongest and a model country, because the way USA policy is detrimental and unstable with how their country turns out to be, when looked upon critically over the three US administrations after World War

  1. How America’s criticism of China’s Communism has directly affected China’s human rights and development and stopped international development and human rights. I will argue that the US critique from assumptions that America is universally the best nation in the world, rather than being a culturally unique and ideal country for the West. Countries do not grow as a state the same way, then why does America model itself as the ideal standard. I will look directly into the relationship of China after the Second World War, while being thorough with Cultural relativism argues that America’s culture and assumptions are relative, not widely-accepted, in the years following the Second World War. I will show how America’s own perceived information regarding the conditions of China, can lead to impulsive short sighted decisions that affect important aspects in China’s human rights and development.

In my argument, I will be talking about how it is detrimental to make the assumptions that America has made for China throughout the 2nd World War. By how assumptions have created a critical barrier to stop and created determinants towards human rights and the existence of Chinese citizens. I will be looking directly into arguments such as, China has no GDP, because they refuse to accept Western ideal of critiques. I will also look into the assumption that

 

because China is communist, their policy is directly detrimental to Chinese citizens. I acknowledge that this is how the twenty-first century turned out, but I am arguing that if America did not have this kind of critique, America would not need to deal with China in both the 2nd World War and the Korean War. This was due to America’s perception of China and how Communism was a bad governmental policy for a country. I will critically analyze using a cultural relativist perspective, as to the flaws with the way that America has chosen to win “their” wars. My argument is based upon the circumstances and the situations that China has been put under when they were considered a new country. This is critical because there was no political uprising from the creation of the People Republic of China. I will argue a more in depth analysis about the circumstances after World War II and philosophical theories that may have contributed to the construction of China and how America’s quick assumptions and demonization have created issues for structural progression, even in regards to human rights.

As human rights is an issue for many countries, the basis of continual human rights is in the United Nations Declaration of Human rights. The United Nations human rights are defined as rights given to everyone, because they are human (Universal Human Rights, 1998). For the sake of this argument, I will be arguing that certain rights, which are given without discrimination, are being denied because a country’s status and support is not fulfilled and thus causing issues towards building a secure and stable economy. I will be arguing in relationship to China-

American relationship and how denial of support due to the fact that America has an

 

anti-Communist policy at the time, greatly affecting China’s ability to rebuild itself as a country, after the Second World War.

Cultural Relativism

 

Cultural relativism is an important aspect towards understanding this relationship between China and America. I am not arguing that Cultural relativism is the absolute criteria for any other country, but a more expanded criteria to understand the circumstances of China, following the Second World War. America, as a Western nation, took part and won World War II, making it a country who is superior to the East or Asian countries. Cultural relativism is defined as having norms and realities that exist subjected to a certain culture, and by which there are no universal norms that people are held to (Beghramin, 2015). For the sake of this argument, I am assuming that there is a certain degree of understanding for a culture, to judge another country based on their own subjective criteria. It is immoral, but has held and stopped international affairs with China. I acknowledge that there are certain universal morals, but I will be evaluating them based on the circumstances of how China dealt with communism and their basis of subjective and societal morals are more cultural relative and bound.

Historical Overview

 

America, during Eisenhower’s administration, was trying to recover from the Second World War. At this time, their political views were swayed to secure that Communism would not create America’s perspectives. Eisenhower initially stated that he would not sign or endorse a multinational human rights treaty (Donnelly, 2017, 366). Furthermore, this is what led to how the Bricker Amendment that stopped the Americans from taking up civil and political human rights or foreign influence (Kaufman, et al. 1988, 309). The main issue of both Communism in international affairs and preventing the basic human rights in the American congress was because of the Bricker Amendment (Donnelly, 2017, 366). The Bricker Amendment was considered to deter from what Americans viewed as “back-door Communism”(Kaufman, et al.

1988, 310).The self-proclaimed leader of the free world was acting as if human rights concerns

 

were undermined by the attack of Communism from the Soviet Russia (2017). For America, it was seemingly that to be anti-communist and anti-human rights and anti-international influence was subjected.

America’s room for anti-Communism is clear throughout the information provided.

 

America’s perspective for this kind of thinking has been demonized since the First World War. Communism/Socialism is a bad ideology and using it on a political level will never progress a country, while suspecting those Communist perspectives (W. H. D. R, 1948, 440). My perspective is not that Communism is the best approach to creating a country, my concern is when you put all proposed legislation and propositions, in a Federal senate, to a demonized Communist ideal just too legally and unanimously dismiss it.

China was more of a country trying to create good profit, although China was solely based upon a Communist margin, there were logical issues that constrained China due to a constant civil war that enveloped a country. While China was confronted with a civil war that desecrated the country, with constant civil war for power between countries, they still had to fight in the new World War, the second. I am not saying that these restrains or cultural relativism are any excuse to allow China to do whatever they wanted, but this is what Chairman Mao thought was right, in the given context, and by creating distant relationships with America greatly affected how China grew as a country (Pauly, 2012, 829). As China faced its greatest challenges as a nation, unsure whether they were to assert a Communism country, based upon many drastically different politics that enveloped China during the end of the Kuomintang Government, played a significant role in how China was to be rebuilt (Hookham, 1979, 170).

The wars that happened after the Kuomintang government was mainly because of two ideological giants that existed (Anstey, 1987, 316). The Communist Party of China was more of

 

a balance between the Russian and the America’s ideologies. With China having their own civil war of many different politics, Japanese people sat back and invaded China many times to gain power over China or at least assert a better relationship directly with the Chinese government (Civil War in China, 1924, 527). It was only then, that the constant struggle for a nation, China, became an issue for American politics.

With China under drastic disarray, due to the Kuomintang government, Peking government, Chairman Mao’s new Communism, Japanese people, and even the people uprising and using coup d’état as a way for Capitalist revolutions, China was certainly bound and constant civil war to a degree that is unimaginable (1924). America used this communist idea, their own perceived idea of Communism, that influenced countries like China and Russia’s ideal, and believed it would take over their country (Kaufman, 1988, 310). For America, Communism ideals were distraught and only could harm the country, even though China and Russia as a state have both succeeded through civil war.

In China’s defense against the use of America’s anti-Communism, I would argue Maslow’ Hierarchy of Needs would be relevant for the development of China without American influence of anti-Communism, as to why Cultural relativism is relevant to the evaluation of China’s crisis (Johns, 2017). I am not saying that China did everything right and ethically correct, but due to Nixon’s presidential system and international affairs, that was China’s only option. I would argue being able to build a country in relevance with the Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is based upon a socio-psychology that defines the satisfaction of moving up the ladder of growth in an individual. The layers of the pyramid begins with Psychological – the sleep, rest, food, water, and basic needs that are required for a human being. The next layer is security- whether an individual has the safety, security, money and

 

personal wellness are evaluated at this level of satisfaction. The layer above is love and belonging, the sense of having relationships and how they impact a person. As a country, I can expand these relationships to the state level, because it impacts how a state is going to build itself when it has these levels satisfied. China was not going to take any understanding from Americans, especially when their policy is anti-Communism and their presidents were very

anti-Communist. This is why a heavier evaluation is required to understand a nation that is completely different from America. China was still building its own ability to supply water, food, basic security for their citizens.

To assume that a certain political structure was enough to be a part of the international community is irrelevant. Assuming to disregard China as an insufficient nation is like saying that to judge another person’s ability, disregarding the context of how they are, and the situation they were in to be politically capable is not an appropriate criteria. America’s assumptions and judgements can be equivalent to saying that they can hate other nations just because of what they think they believe. Let us assume a hypothetical, looking at Freedom of Speech. Let us also assume three different people. Two people at the national airport terminal. He is with his colleague chatting about an issue at work. The third person would sit back and listen to their conversation, named Bob. The two people who are chatting ends up saying a derogatory comment, such as slavery, homophobic, racist or cynical. The only other problem would be that Bob only heard the derogatory comment and nothing else in the conversation. Yet, Bob acts on this cynical ideology and tells a Terminal Special officer about it. To be able to act on this without situation or context would make any conversation very cynical. To think that because you had this idea of a person, because of a comment he said, without context or situation of the conversation, and to act upon this and tell an official because of what Bob thinks, is what is

 

cynical. My point is not that we should not repress phobic language, but without understanding why they talk about it or the context in which they are talking about is toxic. This scenario would be similar to America making assumptions based entirely because of the fact that China has declared itself to be Communist country. China certainly endured many political opinions and was only building itself to be able to handle the growing economy and globalization.

China already resisted the capitalist theory, Japanese rule, Chinese dynasties rule, and

 

far-right wing thinkers. China has already been brought back down to the bare minimum of what they had, due to all this fighting and a coup d’état, and whether it was sure going to be successful because of a communist ideal. For China to be able to develop a country to prosper so they can be concerned with other issues would be relevant to Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. China also went through a famine for a segment of time, where even the basic levels of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs were affected (Johns, 2017). Therefore, having an understanding over a more thorough understanding of the issues that countries have had to deal with, which was cultural relativism and understanding why this was a problem. I am not saying that Cultural Relativism is an excuse for China’s actions and human rights violations, but when America begins to ignore another country based on what they think to be the conclusion of their political view and disregard them as so, which creates foundations for political and civil human rights violations.

How America created issues for China’s human rights. (Argument) In contemporary China, China was already having a war for what is now called People’s Republic of China. Despite all these attacks on China’s land to occupy, there were many distinct political changes. China was trying to change from a democratic to a communist ideological country, due to the change in government and the civil wars that were led from Japan after the First World War (Donnelly, 2007). At the same time, America was giving Turkey and Greece financial aid,

 

although they both have had civil wars that changed their respective governments (Merrill, 2006, 32). After the Tiananmen Square incident, China was evidently in killing their citizens, but America themselves stopped financial support for China’s actions (Donnelly, 2007). American initially stopped their funding, due to China’s action in the Tiananmen Square incident, but it was evident that it was also because China was communist. Greece and Turkey stayed away from a communist government rule, but America was still giving funding to China with Greece and Turkey. I am not saying that because America’s direct financial funding has affected China’s human rights, but it certainly played a role in denying China’s ability to build their country, then form proper policies for ensuring human rights. In relationship with Maslow’s Hierarchy, if a country cannot have food, water, or the basic security as a nation, they cannot build on aspects for self-actualizing and optimal qualities. Self-actualizing as in securing the demands of other nations’ through the United Nations councils, for example the human rights that grant every person in a state political, social and financial rights. Although human rights in China was a violation in 1949, the constant struggle trying to change ideologies after a civil war is evident in holding a country back from building a nation functional with human rights (2007). I am not arguing to excuse China for any of the atrocities committed, but if America was consistent with their support with nations, then there could have been better foreign relationships and negotiations to help build China’s human rights platforms. America and being one of the permanent members of the United Nations does play a big role in decision making towards China and building from its ideological and civil war (2007).

For the uses of Cultural relativism, it would change how America is looked at, as being the highest standard of morals (Kaufman et al. 1988, 309). America is using a universalism approach to critique China’s morals based upon what they believe are justified. This is why

 

America should have judged China’s actions on a more cultural relativist approach, rather than denying proper relationships based on what China says is Communism. I am not saying that cultural relativism is the greatest philosophical theory, I am arguing that China would be analyzed with a more understanding approach.

In the Asian values argument, Donnelly talks about how cultural relativism arguments are contingent and consistent to their specific cultures. He argues how the cultural relativist approach is inconsistent with their Asian values argument. He argues cultures have always changed and configured itself to what is relevant to current day societies, for example democracy and adequate governments. He argues that if Asians do something different back in the day, that Asians do not wish to change that they do now (Donnelly, 2007, 163).

My Asian values’ argument is not that cultures and human rights abuses are excused because they are of different cultures. My argument is that cultures can judge themselves, due to understanding of context and situation that culture is dealing with, rather than having other countries judge them based on universalistic approach. By having a West meets East argument of critiquing and judging each other’s leaders on the decisions they make, they make West look like the moral and cultural superior ones. Since Western countries think that Communism has affected them detrimentally. America’s universalism approach to Communism is a human rights’ hazard. My argument is more formulated on the premise that countries should be able to judge themselves, because they understand the situation, circumstance and how they are, rather than having countries use a Universalist approach to judge each other, disregarding a country’s critical problem. Because of Communism, America saw a need to contain it and ward against it. Cultural relativism is not excusing China for human rights violations, it is expanding America’s ability to critique and make judgements based on their perspectives.

 

In conclusion, I have looked at America’s perspective of anti-Communism, how

 

anti-communism was created and how taking a more cultural relativist perspective can change their analysis of China. Although these strained perspectives of anti-Communism began in the First World War, by keeping a universalistic perspective have harmed the progression to China’s human rights.

America has been a seemingly very promising and prominent country, but it has stopped and is no longer the most powerful country since WWII. They have been the country of the Free World, and have been one of the most powerful leaders in the World’s history. Although America has won most of their wars, and created one of the powerful nations during the four US administrations, their power is subject to be skeptical. They have not been the strongest and a model country, because the way USA policy is detrimental and unstable with how their country turns out to be, when looked upon critically over the three US administrations after World War

  1. How America’s criticism of China’s Communism has directly affected China’s human rights and development and stopped international development and human rights. I will argue that the US critique from assumptions that America is universally the best nation in the world, rather than being a culturally unique and ideal country for the West. Countries do not grow as a state the same way, then why does America model itself as the ideal standard. I will look directly into the relationship of China after the Second World War, while being thorough with Cultural relativism argues that America’s culture and assumptions are relative, not widely-accepted, in the years following the Second World War. I will show how America’s own perceived information regarding the conditions of China, can lead to impulsive short sighted decisions that affect important aspects in China’s human rights and development.

In my argument, I will be talking about how it is detrimental to make the assumptions that America has made for China throughout the 2nd World War. By how assumptions have created a critical barrier to stop and created determinants towards human rights and the existence of Chinese citizens. I will be looking directly into arguments such as, China has no GDP, because they refuse to accept Western ideal of critiques. I will also look into the assumption that

 

because China is communist, their policy is directly detrimental to Chinese citizens. I acknowledge that this is how the twenty-first century turned out, but I am arguing that if America did not have this kind of critique, America would not need to deal with China in both the 2nd World War and the Korean War. This was due to America’s perception of China and how Communism was a bad governmental policy for a country. I will critically analyze using a cultural relativist perspective, as to the flaws with the way that America has chosen to win “their” wars. My argument is based upon the circumstances and the situations that China has been put under when they were considered a new country. This is critical because there was no political uprising from the creation of the People Republic of China. I will argue a more in depth analysis about the circumstances after World War II and philosophical theories that may have contributed to the construction of China and how America’s quick assumptions and demonization have created issues for structural progression, even in regards to human rights.

As human rights is an issue for many countries, the basis of continual human rights is in the United Nations Declaration of Human rights. The United Nations human rights are defined as rights given to everyone, because they are human (Universal Human Rights, 1998). For the sake of this argument, I will be arguing that certain rights, which are given without discrimination, are being denied because a country’s status and support is not fulfilled and thus causing issues towards building a secure and stable economy. I will be arguing in relationship to China-

American relationship and how denial of support due to the fact that America has an

 

anti-Communist policy at the time, greatly affecting China’s ability to rebuild itself as a country, after the Second World War.

Cultural Relativism

 

Cultural relativism is an important aspect towards understanding this relationship between China and America. I am not arguing that Cultural relativism is the absolute criteria for any other country, but a more expanded criteria to understand the circumstances of China, following the Second World War. America, as a Western nation, took part and won World War II, making it a country who is superior to the East or Asian countries. Cultural relativism is defined as having norms and realities that exist subjected to a certain culture, and by which there are no universal norms that people are held to (Beghramin, 2015). For the sake of this argument, I am assuming that there is a certain degree of understanding for a culture, to judge another country based on their own subjective criteria. It is immoral, but has held and stopped international affairs with China. I acknowledge that there are certain universal morals, but I will be evaluating them based on the circumstances of how China dealt with communism and their basis of subjective and societal morals are more cultural relative and bound.

Historical Overview

 

America, during Eisenhower’s administration, was trying to recover from the Second World War. At this time, their political views were swayed to secure that Communism would not create America’s perspectives. Eisenhower initially stated that he would not sign or endorse a multinational human rights treaty (Donnelly, 2017, 366). Furthermore, this is what led to how the Bricker Amendment that stopped the Americans from taking up civil and political human rights or foreign influence (Kaufman, et al. 1988, 309). The main issue of both Communism in international affairs and preventing the basic human rights in the American congress was because of the Bricker Amendment (Donnelly, 2017, 366). The Bricker Amendment was considered to deter from what Americans viewed as “back-door Communism”(Kaufman, et al.

1988, 310).The self-proclaimed leader of the free world was acting as if human rights concerns

 

were undermined by the attack of Communism from the Soviet Russia (2017). For America, it was seemingly that to be anti-communist and anti-human rights and anti-international influence was subjected.

America’s room for anti-Communism is clear throughout the information provided.

 

America’s perspective for this kind of thinking has been demonized since the First World War. Communism/Socialism is a bad ideology and using it on a political level will never progress a country, while suspecting those Communist perspectives (W. H. D. R, 1948, 440). My perspective is not that Communism is the best approach to creating a country, my concern is when you put all proposed legislation and propositions, in a Federal senate, to a demonized Communist ideal just too legally and unanimously dismiss it.

China was more of a country trying to create good profit, although China was solely based upon a Communist margin, there were logical issues that constrained China due to a constant civil war that enveloped a country. While China was confronted with a civil war that desecrated the country, with constant civil war for power between countries, they still had to fight in the new World War, the second. I am not saying that these restrains or cultural relativism are any excuse to allow China to do whatever they wanted, but this is what Chairman Mao thought was right, in the given context, and by creating distant relationships with America greatly affected how China grew as a country (Pauly, 2012, 829). As China faced its greatest challenges as a nation, unsure whether they were to assert a Communism country, based upon many drastically different politics that enveloped China during the end of the Kuomintang Government, played a significant role in how China was to be rebuilt (Hookham, 1979, 170).

The wars that happened after the Kuomintang government was mainly because of two ideological giants that existed (Anstey, 1987, 316). The Communist Party of China was more of

 

a balance between the Russian and the America’s ideologies. With China having their own civil war of many different politics, Japanese people sat back and invaded China many times to gain power over China or at least assert a better relationship directly with the Chinese government (Civil War in China, 1924, 527). It was only then, that the constant struggle for a nation, China, became an issue for American politics.

With China under drastic disarray, due to the Kuomintang government, Peking government, Chairman Mao’s new Communism, Japanese people, and even the people uprising and using coup d’état as a way for Capitalist revolutions, China was certainly bound and constant civil war to a degree that is unimaginable (1924). America used this communist idea, their own perceived idea of Communism, that influenced countries like China and Russia’s ideal, and believed it would take over their country (Kaufman, 1988, 310). For America, Communism ideals were distraught and only could harm the country, even though China and Russia as a state have both succeeded through civil war.

In China’s defense against the use of America’s anti-Communism, I would argue Maslow’ Hierarchy of Needs would be relevant for the development of China without American influence of anti-Communism, as to why Cultural relativism is relevant to the evaluation of China’s crisis (Johns, 2017). I am not saying that China did everything right and ethically correct, but due to Nixon’s presidential system and international affairs, that was China’s only option. I would argue being able to build a country in relevance with the Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is based upon a socio-psychology that defines the satisfaction of moving up the ladder of growth in an individual. The layers of the pyramid begins with Psychological – the sleep, rest, food, water, and basic needs that are required for a human being. The next layer is security- whether an individual has the safety, security, money and

 

personal wellness are evaluated at this level of satisfaction. The layer above is love and belonging, the sense of having relationships and how they impact a person. As a country, I can expand these relationships to the state level, because it impacts how a state is going to build itself when it has these levels satisfied. China was not going to take any understanding from Americans, especially when their policy is anti-Communism and their presidents were very

anti-Communist. This is why a heavier evaluation is required to understand a nation that is completely different from America. China was still building its own ability to supply water, food, basic security for their citizens.

To assume that a certain political structure was enough to be a part of the international community is irrelevant. Assuming to disregard China as an insufficient nation is like saying that to judge another person’s ability, disregarding the context of how they are, and the situation they were in to be politically capable is not an appropriate criteria. America’s assumptions and judgements can be equivalent to saying that they can hate other nations just because of what they think they believe. Let us assume a hypothetical, looking at Freedom of Speech. Let us also assume three different people. Two people at the national airport terminal. He is with his colleague chatting about an issue at work. The third person would sit back and listen to their conversation, named Bob. The two people who are chatting ends up saying a derogatory comment, such as slavery, homophobic, racist or cynical. The only other problem would be that Bob only heard the derogatory comment and nothing else in the conversation. Yet, Bob acts on this cynical ideology and tells a Terminal Special officer about it. To be able to act on this without situation or context would make any conversation very cynical. To think that because you had this idea of a person, because of a comment he said, without context or situation of the conversation, and to act upon this and tell an official because of what Bob thinks, is what is

 

cynical. My point is not that we should not repress phobic language, but without understanding why they talk about it or the context in which they are talking about is toxic. This scenario would be similar to America making assumptions based entirely because of the fact that China has declared itself to be Communist country. China certainly endured many political opinions and was only building itself to be able to handle the growing economy and globalization.

China already resisted the capitalist theory, Japanese rule, Chinese dynasties rule, and

 

far-right wing thinkers. China has already been brought back down to the bare minimum of what they had, due to all this fighting and a coup d’état, and whether it was sure going to be successful because of a communist ideal. For China to be able to develop a country to prosper so they can be concerned with other issues would be relevant to Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. China also went through a famine for a segment of time, where even the basic levels of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs were affected (Johns, 2017). Therefore, having an understanding over a more thorough understanding of the issues that countries have had to deal with, which was cultural relativism and understanding why this was a problem. I am not saying that Cultural Relativism is an excuse for China’s actions and human rights violations, but when America begins to ignore another country based on what they think to be the conclusion of their political view and disregard them as so, which creates foundations for political and civil human rights violations.

How America created issues for China’s human rights. (Argument) In contemporary China, China was already having a war for what is now called People’s Republic of China. Despite all these attacks on China’s land to occupy, there were many distinct political changes. China was trying to change from a democratic to a communist ideological country, due to the change in government and the civil wars that were led from Japan after the First World War (Donnelly, 2007). At the same time, America was giving Turkey and Greece financial aid,

 

although they both have had civil wars that changed their respective governments (Merrill, 2006, 32). After the Tiananmen Square incident, China was evidently in killing their citizens, but America themselves stopped financial support for China’s actions (Donnelly, 2007). American initially stopped their funding, due to China’s action in the Tiananmen Square incident, but it was evident that it was also because China was communist. Greece and Turkey stayed away from a communist government rule, but America was still giving funding to China with Greece and Turkey. I am not saying that because America’s direct financial funding has affected China’s human rights, but it certainly played a role in denying China’s ability to build their country, then form proper policies for ensuring human rights. In relationship with Maslow’s Hierarchy, if a country cannot have food, water, or the basic security as a nation, they cannot build on aspects for self-actualizing and optimal qualities. Self-actualizing as in securing the demands of other nations’ through the United Nations councils, for example the human rights that grant every person in a state political, social and financial rights. Although human rights in China was a violation in 1949, the constant struggle trying to change ideologies after a civil war is evident in holding a country back from building a nation functional with human rights (2007). I am not arguing to excuse China for any of the atrocities committed, but if America was consistent with their support with nations, then there could have been better foreign relationships and negotiations to help build China’s human rights platforms. America and being one of the permanent members of the United Nations does play a big role in decision making towards China and building from its ideological and civil war (2007).

For the uses of Cultural relativism, it would change how America is looked at, as being the highest standard of morals (Kaufman et al. 1988, 309). America is using a universalism approach to critique China’s morals based upon what they believe are justified. This is why

 

America should have judged China’s actions on a more cultural relativist approach, rather than denying proper relationships based on what China says is Communism. I am not saying that cultural relativism is the greatest philosophical theory, I am arguing that China would be analyzed with a more understanding approach.

In the Asian values argument, Donnelly talks about how cultural relativism arguments are contingent and consistent to their specific cultures. He argues how the cultural relativist approach is inconsistent with their Asian values argument. He argues cultures have always changed and configured itself to what is relevant to current day societies, for example democracy and adequate governments. He argues that if Asians do something different back in the day, that Asians do not wish to change that they do now (Donnelly, 2007, 163).

My Asian values’ argument is not that cultures and human rights abuses are excused because they are of different cultures. My argument is that cultures can judge themselves, due to understanding of context and situation that culture is dealing with, rather than having other countries judge them based on universalistic approach. By having a West meets East argument of critiquing and judging each other’s leaders on the decisions they make, they make West look like the moral and cultural superior ones. Since Western countries think that Communism has affected them detrimentally. America’s universalism approach to Communism is a human rights’ hazard. My argument is more formulated on the premise that countries should be able to judge themselves, because they understand the situation, circumstance and how they are, rather than having countries use a Universalist approach to judge each other, disregarding a country’s critical problem. Because of Communism, America saw a need to contain it and ward against it. Cultural relativism is not excusing China for human rights violations, it is expanding America’s ability to critique and make judgements based on their perspectives.

 

In conclusion, I have looked at America’s perspective of anti-Communism, how

 

anti-communism was created and how taking a more cultural relativist perspective can change their analysis of China. Although these strained perspectives of anti-Communism began in the First World War, by keeping a universalistic perspective have harmed the progression to China’s human rights.

America has been a seemingly very promising and prominent country, but it has stopped and is no longer the most powerful country since WWII. They have been the country of the Free World, and have been one of the most powerful leaders in the World’s history. Although America has won most of their wars, and created one of the powerful nations during the four US administrations, their power is subject to be skeptical. They have not been the strongest and a model country, because the way USA policy is detrimental and unstable with how their country turns out to be, when looked upon critically over the three US administrations after World War

  1. How America’s criticism of China’s Communism has directly affected China’s human rights and development and stopped international development and human rights. I will argue that the US critique from assumptions that America is universally the best nation in the world, rather than being a culturally unique and ideal country for the West. Countries do not grow as a state the same way, then why does America model itself as the ideal standard. I will look directly into the relationship of China after the Second World War, while being thorough with Cultural relativism argues that America’s culture and assumptions are relative, not widely-accepted, in the years following the Second World War. I will show how America’s own perceived information regarding the conditions of China, can lead to impulsive short sighted decisions that affect important aspects in China’s human rights and development.

In my argument, I will be talking about how it is detrimental to make the assumptions that America has made for China throughout the 2nd World War. By how assumptions have created a critical barrier to stop and created determinants towards human rights and the existence of Chinese citizens. I will be looking directly into arguments such as, China has no GDP, because they refuse to accept Western ideal of critiques. I will also look into the assumption that

 

because China is communist, their policy is directly detrimental to Chinese citizens. I acknowledge that this is how the twenty-first century turned out, but I am arguing that if America did not have this kind of critique, America would not need to deal with China in both the 2nd World War and the Korean War. This was due to America’s perception of China and how Communism was a bad governmental policy for a country. I will critically analyze using a cultural relativist perspective, as to the flaws with the way that America has chosen to win “their” wars. My argument is based upon the circumstances and the situations that China has been put under when they were considered a new country. This is critical because there was no political uprising from the creation of the People Republic of China. I will argue a more in depth analysis about the circumstances after World War II and philosophical theories that may have contributed to the construction of China and how America’s quick assumptions and demonization have created issues for structural progression, even in regards to human rights.

As human rights is an issue for many countries, the basis of continual human rights is in the United Nations Declaration of Human rights. The United Nations human rights are defined as rights given to everyone, because they are human (Universal Human Rights, 1998). For the sake of this argument, I will be arguing that certain rights, which are given without discrimination, are being denied because a country’s status and support is not fulfilled and thus causing issues towards building a secure and stable economy. I will be arguing in relationship to China-

American relationship and how denial of support due to the fact that America has an

 

anti-Communist policy at the time, greatly affecting China’s ability to rebuild itself as a country, after the Second World War.

Cultural Relativism

 

Cultural relativism is an important aspect towards understanding this relationship between China and America. I am not arguing that Cultural relativism is the absolute criteria for any other country, but a more expanded criteria to understand the circumstances of China, following the Second World War. America, as a Western nation, took part and won World War II, making it a country who is superior to the East or Asian countries. Cultural relativism is defined as having norms and realities that exist subjected to a certain culture, and by which there are no universal norms that people are held to (Beghramin, 2015). For the sake of this argument, I am assuming that there is a certain degree of understanding for a culture, to judge another country based on their own subjective criteria. It is immoral, but has held and stopped international affairs with China. I acknowledge that there are certain universal morals, but I will be evaluating them based on the circumstances of how China dealt with communism and their basis of subjective and societal morals are more cultural relative and bound.

Historical Overview

 

America, during Eisenhower’s administration, was trying to recover from the Second World War. At this time, their political views were swayed to secure that Communism would not create America’s perspectives. Eisenhower initially stated that he would not sign or endorse a multinational human rights treaty (Donnelly, 2017, 366). Furthermore, this is what led to how the Bricker Amendment that stopped the Americans from taking up civil and political human rights or foreign influence (Kaufman, et al. 1988, 309). The main issue of both Communism in international affairs and preventing the basic human rights in the American congress was because of the Bricker Amendment (Donnelly, 2017, 366). The Bricker Amendment was considered to deter from what Americans viewed as “back-door Communism”(Kaufman, et al.

1988, 310).The self-proclaimed leader of the free world was acting as if human rights concerns

 

were undermined by the attack of Communism from the Soviet Russia (2017). For America, it was seemingly that to be anti-communist and anti-human rights and anti-international influence was subjected.

America’s room for anti-Communism is clear throughout the information provided.

 

America’s perspective for this kind of thinking has been demonized since the First World War. Communism/Socialism is a bad ideology and using it on a political level will never progress a country, while suspecting those Communist perspectives (W. H. D. R, 1948, 440). My perspective is not that Communism is the best approach to creating a country, my concern is when you put all proposed legislation and propositions, in a Federal senate, to a demonized Communist ideal just too legally and unanimously dismiss it.

China was more of a country trying to create good profit, although China was solely based upon a Communist margin, there were logical issues that constrained China due to a constant civil war that enveloped a country. While China was confronted with a civil war that desecrated the country, with constant civil war for power between countries, they still had to fight in the new World War, the second. I am not saying that these restrains or cultural relativism are any excuse to allow China to do whatever they wanted, but this is what Chairman Mao thought was right, in the given context, and by creating distant relationships with America greatly affected how China grew as a country (Pauly, 2012, 829). As China faced its greatest challenges as a nation, unsure whether they were to assert a Communism country, based upon many drastically different politics that enveloped China during the end of the Kuomintang Government, played a significant role in how China was to be rebuilt (Hookham, 1979, 170).

The wars that happened after the Kuomintang government was mainly because of two ideological giants that existed (Anstey, 1987, 316). The Communist Party of China was more of

 

a balance between the Russian and the America’s ideologies. With China having their own civil war of many different politics, Japanese people sat back and invaded China many times to gain power over China or at least assert a better relationship directly with the Chinese government (Civil War in China, 1924, 527). It was only then, that the constant struggle for a nation, China, became an issue for American politics.

With China under drastic disarray, due to the Kuomintang government, Peking government, Chairman Mao’s new Communism, Japanese people, and even the people uprising and using coup d’état as a way for Capitalist revolutions, China was certainly bound and constant civil war to a degree that is unimaginable (1924). America used this communist idea, their own perceived idea of Communism, that influenced countries like China and Russia’s ideal, and believed it would take over their country (Kaufman, 1988, 310). For America, Communism ideals were distraught and only could harm the country, even though China and Russia as a state have both succeeded through civil war.

In China’s defense against the use of America’s anti-Communism, I would argue Maslow’ Hierarchy of Needs would be relevant for the development of China without American influence of anti-Communism, as to why Cultural relativism is relevant to the evaluation of China’s crisis (Johns, 2017). I am not saying that China did everything right and ethically correct, but due to Nixon’s presidential system and international affairs, that was China’s only option. I would argue being able to build a country in relevance with the Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is based upon a socio-psychology that defines the satisfaction of moving up the ladder of growth in an individual. The layers of the pyramid begins with Psychological – the sleep, rest, food, water, and basic needs that are required for a human being. The next layer is security- whether an individual has the safety, security, money and

 

personal wellness are evaluated at this level of satisfaction. The layer above is love and belonging, the sense of having relationships and how they impact a person. As a country, I can expand these relationships to the state level, because it impacts how a state is going to build itself when it has these levels satisfied. China was not going to take any understanding from Americans, especially when their policy is anti-Communism and their presidents were very

anti-Communist. This is why a heavier evaluation is required to understand a nation that is completely different from America. China was still building its own ability to supply water, food, basic security for their citizens.

To assume that a certain political structure was enough to be a part of the international community is irrelevant. Assuming to disregard China as an insufficient nation is like saying that to judge another person’s ability, disregarding the context of how they are, and the situation they were in to be politically capable is not an appropriate criteria. America’s assumptions and judgements can be equivalent to saying that they can hate other nations just because of what they think they believe. Let us assume a hypothetical, looking at Freedom of Speech. Let us also assume three different people. Two people at the national airport terminal. He is with his colleague chatting about an issue at work. The third person would sit back and listen to their conversation, named Bob. The two people who are chatting ends up saying a derogatory comment, such as slavery, homophobic, racist or cynical. The only other problem would be that Bob only heard the derogatory comment and nothing else in the conversation. Yet, Bob acts on this cynical ideology and tells a Terminal Special officer about it. To be able to act on this without situation or context would make any conversation very cynical. To think that because you had this idea of a person, because of a comment he said, without context or situation of the conversation, and to act upon this and tell an official because of what Bob thinks, is what is

 

cynical. My point is not that we should not repress phobic language, but without understanding why they talk about it or the context in which they are talking about is toxic. This scenario would be similar to America making assumptions based entirely because of the fact that China has declared itself to be Communist country. China certainly endured many political opinions and was only building itself to be able to handle the growing economy and globalization.

China already resisted the capitalist theory, Japanese rule, Chinese dynasties rule, and

 

far-right wing thinkers. China has already been brought back down to the bare minimum of what they had, due to all this fighting and a coup d’état, and whether it was sure going to be successful because of a communist ideal. For China to be able to develop a country to prosper so they can be concerned with other issues would be relevant to Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. China also went through a famine for a segment of time, where even the basic levels of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs were affected (Johns, 2017). Therefore, having an understanding over a more thorough understanding of the issues that countries have had to deal with, which was cultural relativism and understanding why this was a problem. I am not saying that Cultural Relativism is an excuse for China’s actions and human rights violations, but when America begins to ignore another country based on what they think to be the conclusion of their political view and disregard them as so, which creates foundations for political and civil human rights violations.

How America created issues for China’s human rights. (Argument) In contemporary China, China was already having a war for what is now called People’s Republic of China. Despite all these attacks on China’s land to occupy, there were many distinct political changes. China was trying to change from a democratic to a communist ideological country, due to the change in government and the civil wars that were led from Japan after the First World War (Donnelly, 2007). At the same time, America was giving Turkey and Greece financial aid,

 

although they both have had civil wars that changed their respective governments (Merrill, 2006, 32). After the Tiananmen Square incident, China was evidently in killing their citizens, but America themselves stopped financial support for China’s actions (Donnelly, 2007). American initially stopped their funding, due to China’s action in the Tiananmen Square incident, but it was evident that it was also because China was communist. Greece and Turkey stayed away from a communist government rule, but America was still giving funding to China with Greece and Turkey. I am not saying that because America’s direct financial funding has affected China’s human rights, but it certainly played a role in denying China’s ability to build their country, then form proper policies for ensuring human rights. In relationship with Maslow’s Hierarchy, if a country cannot have food, water, or the basic security as a nation, they cannot build on aspects for self-actualizing and optimal qualities. Self-actualizing as in securing the demands of other nations’ through the United Nations councils, for example the human rights that grant every person in a state political, social and financial rights. Although human rights in China was a violation in 1949, the constant struggle trying to change ideologies after a civil war is evident in holding a country back from building a nation functional with human rights (2007). I am not arguing to excuse China for any of the atrocities committed, but if America was consistent with their support with nations, then there could have been better foreign relationships and negotiations to help build China’s human rights platforms. America and being one of the permanent members of the United Nations does play a big role in decision making towards China and building from its ideological and civil war (2007).

For the uses of Cultural relativism, it would change how America is looked at, as being the highest standard of morals (Kaufman et al. 1988, 309). America is using a universalism approach to critique China’s morals based upon what they believe are justified. This is why

 

America should have judged China’s actions on a more cultural relativist approach, rather than denying proper relationships based on what China says is Communism. I am not saying that cultural relativism is the greatest philosophical theory, I am arguing that China would be analyzed with a more understanding approach.

In the Asian values argument, Donnelly talks about how cultural relativism arguments are contingent and consistent to their specific cultures. He argues how the cultural relativist approach is inconsistent with their Asian values argument. He argues cultures have always changed and configured itself to what is relevant to current day societies, for example democracy and adequate governments. He argues that if Asians do something different back in the day, that Asians do not wish to change that they do now (Donnelly, 2007, 163).

My Asian values’ argument is not that cultures and human rights abuses are excused because they are of different cultures. My argument is that cultures can judge themselves, due to understanding of context and situation that culture is dealing with, rather than having other countries judge them based on universalistic approach. By having a West meets East argument of critiquing and judging each other’s leaders on the decisions they make, they make West look like the moral and cultural superior ones. Since Western countries think that Communism has affected them detrimentally. America’s universalism approach to Communism is a human rights’ hazard. My argument is more formulated on the premise that countries should be able to judge themselves, because they understand the situation, circumstance and how they are, rather than having countries use a Universalist approach to judge each other, disregarding a country’s critical problem. Because of Communism, America saw a need to contain it and ward against it. Cultural relativism is not excusing China for human rights violations, it is expanding America’s ability to critique and make judgements based on their perspectives.

 

In conclusion, I have looked at America’s perspective of anti-Communism, how

 

anti-communism was created and how taking a more cultural relativist perspective can change their analysis of China. Although these strained perspectives of anti-Communism began in the First World War, by keeping a universalistic perspective have harmed the progression to China’s human rights.

America has been a seemingly very promising and prominent country, but it has stopped and is no longer the most powerful country since WWII. They have been the country of the Free World, and have been one of the most powerful leaders in the World’s history. Although America has won most of their wars, and created one of the powerful nations during the four US administrations, their power is subject to be skeptical. They have not been the strongest and a model country, because the way USA policy is detrimental and unstable with how their country turns out to be, when looked upon critically over the three US administrations after World War

  1. How America’s criticism of China’s Communism has directly affected China’s human rights and development and stopped international development and human rights. I will argue that the US critique from assumptions that America is universally the best nation in the world, rather than being a culturally unique and ideal country for the West. Countries do not grow as a state the same way, then why does America model itself as the ideal standard. I will look directly into the relationship of China after the Second World War, while being thorough with Cultural relativism argues that America’s culture and assumptions are relative, not widely-accepted, in the years following the Second World War. I will show how America’s own perceived information regarding the conditions of China, can lead to impulsive short sighted decisions that affect important aspects in China’s human rights and development.

In my argument, I will be talking about how it is detrimental to make the assumptions that America has made for China throughout the 2nd World War. By how assumptions have created a critical barrier to stop and created determinants towards human rights and the existence of Chinese citizens. I will be looking directly into arguments such as, China has no GDP, because they refuse to accept Western ideal of critiques. I will also look into the assumption that

 

because China is communist, their policy is directly detrimental to Chinese citizens. I acknowledge that this is how the twenty-first century turned out, but I am arguing that if America did not have this kind of critique, America would not need to deal with China in both the 2nd World War and the Korean War. This was due to America’s perception of China and how Communism was a bad governmental policy for a country. I will critically analyze using a cultural relativist perspective, as to the flaws with the way that America has chosen to win “their” wars. My argument is based upon the circumstances and the situations that China has been put under when they were considered a new country. This is critical because there was no political uprising from the creation of the People Republic of China. I will argue a more in depth analysis about the circumstances after World War II and philosophical theories that may have contributed to the construction of China and how America’s quick assumptions and demonization have created issues for structural progression, even in regards to human rights.

As human rights is an issue for many countries, the basis of continual human rights is in the United Nations Declaration of Human rights. The United Nations human rights are defined as rights given to everyone, because they are human (Universal Human Rights, 1998). For the sake of this argument, I will be arguing that certain rights, which are given without discrimination, are being denied because a country’s status and support is not fulfilled and thus causing issues towards building a secure and stable economy. I will be arguing in relationship to China-

American relationship and how denial of support due to the fact that America has an

 

anti-Communist policy at the time, greatly affecting China’s ability to rebuild itself as a country, after the Second World War.

Cultural Relativism

 

Cultural relativism is an important aspect towards understanding this relationship between China and America. I am not arguing that Cultural relativism is the absolute criteria for any other country, but a more expanded criteria to understand the circumstances of China, following the Second World War. America, as a Western nation, took part and won World War II, making it a country who is superior to the East or Asian countries. Cultural relativism is defined as having norms and realities that exist subjected to a certain culture, and by which there are no universal norms that people are held to (Beghramin, 2015). For the sake of this argument, I am assuming that there is a certain degree of understanding for a culture, to judge another country based on their own subjective criteria. It is immoral, but has held and stopped international affairs with China. I acknowledge that there are certain universal morals, but I will be evaluating them based on the circumstances of how China dealt with communism and their basis of subjective and societal morals are more cultural relative and bound.

Historical Overview

 

America, during Eisenhower’s administration, was trying to recover from the Second World War. At this time, their political views were swayed to secure that Communism would not create America’s perspectives. Eisenhower initially stated that he would not sign or endorse a multinational human rights treaty (Donnelly, 2017, 366). Furthermore, this is what led to how the Bricker Amendment that stopped the Americans from taking up civil and political human rights or foreign influence (Kaufman, et al. 1988, 309). The main issue of both Communism in international affairs and preventing the basic human rights in the American congress was because of the Bricker Amendment (Donnelly, 2017, 366). The Bricker Amendment was considered to deter from what Americans viewed as “back-door Communism”(Kaufman, et al.

1988, 310).The self-proclaimed leader of the free world was acting as if human rights concerns

 

were undermined by the attack of Communism from the Soviet Russia (2017). For America, it was seemingly that to be anti-communist and anti-human rights and anti-international influence was subjected.

America’s room for anti-Communism is clear throughout the information provided.

 

America’s perspective for this kind of thinking has been demonized since the First World War. Communism/Socialism is a bad ideology and using it on a political level will never progress a country, while suspecting those Communist perspectives (W. H. D. R, 1948, 440). My perspective is not that Communism is the best approach to creating a country, my concern is when you put all proposed legislation and propositions, in a Federal senate, to a demonized Communist ideal just too legally and unanimously dismiss it.

China was more of a country trying to create good profit, although China was solely based upon a Communist margin, there were logical issues that constrained China due to a constant civil war that enveloped a country. While China was confronted with a civil war that desecrated the country, with constant civil war for power between countries, they still had to fight in the new World War, the second. I am not saying that these restrains or cultural relativism are any excuse to allow China to do whatever they wanted, but this is what Chairman Mao thought was right, in the given context, and by creating distant relationships with America greatly affected how China grew as a country (Pauly, 2012, 829). As China faced its greatest challenges as a nation, unsure whether they were to assert a Communism country, based upon many drastically different politics that enveloped China during the end of the Kuomintang Government, played a significant role in how China was to be rebuilt (Hookham, 1979, 170).

The wars that happened after the Kuomintang government was mainly because of two ideological giants that existed (Anstey, 1987, 316). The Communist Party of China was more of

 

a balance between the Russian and the America’s ideologies. With China having their own civil war of many different politics, Japanese people sat back and invaded China many times to gain power over China or at least assert a better relationship directly with the Chinese government (Civil War in China, 1924, 527). It was only then, that the constant struggle for a nation, China, became an issue for American politics.

With China under drastic disarray, due to the Kuomintang government, Peking government, Chairman Mao’s new Communism, Japanese people, and even the people uprising and using coup d’état as a way for Capitalist revolutions, China was certainly bound and constant civil war to a degree that is unimaginable (1924). America used this communist idea, their own perceived idea of Communism, that influenced countries like China and Russia’s ideal, and believed it would take over their country (Kaufman, 1988, 310). For America, Communism ideals were distraught and only could harm the country, even though China and Russia as a state have both succeeded through civil war.

In China’s defense against the use of America’s anti-Communism, I would argue Maslow’ Hierarchy of Needs would be relevant for the development of China without American influence of anti-Communism, as to why Cultural relativism is relevant to the evaluation of China’s crisis (Johns, 2017). I am not saying that China did everything right and ethically correct, but due to Nixon’s presidential system and international affairs, that was China’s only option. I would argue being able to build a country in relevance with the Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is based upon a socio-psychology that defines the satisfaction of moving up the ladder of growth in an individual. The layers of the pyramid begins with Psychological – the sleep, rest, food, water, and basic needs that are required for a human being. The next layer is security- whether an individual has the safety, security, money and

 

personal wellness are evaluated at this level of satisfaction. The layer above is love and belonging, the sense of having relationships and how they impact a person. As a country, I can expand these relationships to the state level, because it impacts how a state is going to build itself when it has these levels satisfied. China was not going to take any understanding from Americans, especially when their policy is anti-Communism and their presidents were very

anti-Communist. This is why a heavier evaluation is required to understand a nation that is completely different from America. China was still building its own ability to supply water, food, basic security for their citizens.

To assume that a certain political structure was enough to be a part of the international community is irrelevant. Assuming to disregard China as an insufficient nation is like saying that to judge another person’s ability, disregarding the context of how they are, and the situation they were in to be politically capable is not an appropriate criteria. America’s assumptions and judgements can be equivalent to saying that they can hate other nations just because of what they think they believe. Let us assume a hypothetical, looking at Freedom of Speech. Let us also assume three different people. Two people at the national airport terminal. He is with his colleague chatting about an issue at work. The third person would sit back and listen to their conversation, named Bob. The two people who are chatting ends up saying a derogatory comment, such as slavery, homophobic, racist or cynical. The only other problem would be that Bob only heard the derogatory comment and nothing else in the conversation. Yet, Bob acts on this cynical ideology and tells a Terminal Special officer about it. To be able to act on this without situation or context would make any conversation very cynical. To think that because you had this idea of a person, because of a comment he said, without context or situation of the conversation, and to act upon this and tell an official because of what Bob thinks, is what is

 

cynical. My point is not that we should not repress phobic language, but without understanding why they talk about it or the context in which they are talking about is toxic. This scenario would be similar to America making assumptions based entirely because of the fact that China has declared itself to be Communist country. China certainly endured many political opinions and was only building itself to be able to handle the growing economy and globalization.

China already resisted the capitalist theory, Japanese rule, Chinese dynasties rule, and

 

far-right wing thinkers. China has already been brought back down to the bare minimum of what they had, due to all this fighting and a coup d’état, and whether it was sure going to be successful because of a communist ideal. For China to be able to develop a country to prosper so they can be concerned with other issues would be relevant to Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. China also went through a famine for a segment of time, where even the basic levels of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs were affected (Johns, 2017). Therefore, having an understanding over a more thorough understanding of the issues that countries have had to deal with, which was cultural relativism and understanding why this was a problem. I am not saying that Cultural Relativism is an excuse for China’s actions and human rights violations, but when America begins to ignore another country based on what they think to be the conclusion of their political view and disregard them as so, which creates foundations for political and civil human rights violations.

How America created issues for China’s human rights. (Argument) In contemporary China, China was already having a war for what is now called People’s Republic of China. Despite all these attacks on China’s land to occupy, there were many distinct political changes. China was trying to change from a democratic to a communist ideological country, due to the change in government and the civil wars that were led from Japan after the First World War (Donnelly, 2007). At the same time, America was giving Turkey and Greece financial aid,

 

although they both have had civil wars that changed their respective governments (Merrill, 2006, 32). After the Tiananmen Square incident, China was evidently in killing their citizens, but America themselves stopped financial support for China’s actions (Donnelly, 2007). American initially stopped their funding, due to China’s action in the Tiananmen Square incident, but it was evident that it was also because China was communist. Greece and Turkey stayed away from a communist government rule, but America was still giving funding to China with Greece and Turkey. I am not saying that because America’s direct financial funding has affected China’s human rights, but it certainly played a role in denying China’s ability to build their country, then form proper policies for ensuring human rights. In relationship with Maslow’s Hierarchy, if a country cannot have food, water, or the basic security as a nation, they cannot build on aspects for self-actualizing and optimal qualities. Self-actualizing as in securing the demands of other nations’ through the United Nations councils, for example the human rights that grant every person in a state political, social and financial rights. Although human rights in China was a violation in 1949, the constant struggle trying to change ideologies after a civil war is evident in holding a country back from building a nation functional with human rights (2007). I am not arguing to excuse China for any of the atrocities committed, but if America was consistent with their support with nations, then there could have been better foreign relationships and negotiations to help build China’s human rights platforms. America and being one of the permanent members of the United Nations does play a big role in decision making towards China and building from its ideological and civil war (2007).

For the uses of Cultural relativism, it would change how America is looked at, as being the highest standard of morals (Kaufman et al. 1988, 309). America is using a universalism approach to critique China’s morals based upon what they believe are justified. This is why

 

America should have judged China’s actions on a more cultural relativist approach, rather than denying proper relationships based on what China says is Communism. I am not saying that cultural relativism is the greatest philosophical theory, I am arguing that China would be analyzed with a more understanding approach.

In the Asian values argument, Donnelly talks about how cultural relativism arguments are contingent and consistent to their specific cultures. He argues how the cultural relativist approach is inconsistent with their Asian values argument. He argues cultures have always changed and configured itself to what is relevant to current day societies, for example democracy and adequate governments. He argues that if Asians do something different back in the day, that Asians do not wish to change that they do now (Donnelly, 2007, 163).

My Asian values’ argument is not that cultures and human rights abuses are excused because they are of different cultures. My argument is that cultures can judge themselves, due to understanding of context and situation that culture is dealing with, rather than having other countries judge them based on universalistic approach. By having a West meets East argument of critiquing and judging each other’s leaders on the decisions they make, they make West look like the moral and cultural superior ones. Since Western countries think that Communism has affected them detrimentally. America’s universalism approach to Communism is a human rights’ hazard. My argument is more formulated on the premise that countries should be able to judge themselves, because they understand the situation, circumstance and how they are, rather than having countries use a Universalist approach to judge each other, disregarding a country’s critical problem. Because of Communism, America saw a need to contain it and ward against it. Cultural relativism is not excusing China for human rights violations, it is expanding America’s ability to critique and make judgements based on their perspectives.

 

In conclusion, I have looked at America’s perspective of anti-Communism, how

 

anti-communism was created and how taking a more cultural relativist perspective can change their analysis of China. Although these strained perspectives of anti-Communism began in the First World War, by keeping a universalistic perspective have harmed the progression to China’s human rights.

America has been a seemingly very promising and prominent country, but it has stopped and is no longer the most powerful country since WWII. They have been the country of the Free World, and have been one of the most powerful leaders in the World’s history. Although America has won most of their wars, and created one of the powerful nations during the four US administrations, their power is subject to be skeptical. They have not been the strongest and a model country, because the way USA policy is detrimental and unstable with how their country turns out to be, when looked upon critically over the three US administrations after World War

  1. How America’s criticism of China’s Communism has directly affected China’s human rights and development and stopped international development and human rights. I will argue that the US critique from assumptions that America is universally the best nation in the world, rather than being a culturally unique and ideal country for the West. Countries do not grow as a state the same way, then why does America model itself as the ideal standard. I will look directly into the relationship of China after the Second World War, while being thorough with Cultural relativism argues that America’s culture and assumptions are relative, not widely-accepted, in the years following the Second World War. I will show how America’s own perceived information regarding the conditions of China, can lead to impulsive short sighted decisions that affect important aspects in China’s human rights and development.

In my argument, I will be talking about how it is detrimental to make the assumptions that America has made for China throughout the 2nd World War. By how assumptions have created a critical barrier to stop and created determinants towards human rights and the existence of Chinese citizens. I will be looking directly into arguments such as, China has no GDP, because they refuse to accept Western ideal of critiques. I will also look into the assumption that

 

because China is communist, their policy is directly detrimental to Chinese citizens. I acknowledge that this is how the twenty-first century turned out, but I am arguing that if America did not have this kind of critique, America would not need to deal with China in both the 2nd World War and the Korean War. This was due to America’s perception of China and how Communism was a bad governmental policy for a country. I will critically analyze using a cultural relativist perspective, as to the flaws with the way that America has chosen to win “their” wars. My argument is based upon the circumstances and the situations that China has been put under when they were considered a new country. This is critical because there was no political uprising from the creation of the People Republic of China. I will argue a more in depth analysis about the circumstances after World War II and philosophical theories that may have contributed to the construction of China and how America’s quick assumptions and demonization have created issues for structural progression, even in regards to human rights.

As human rights is an issue for many countries, the basis of continual human rights is in the United Nations Declaration of Human rights. The United Nations human rights are defined as rights given to everyone, because they are human (Universal Human Rights, 1998). For the sake of this argument, I will be arguing that certain rights, which are given without discrimination, are being denied because a country’s status and support is not fulfilled and thus causing issues towards building a secure and stable economy. I will be arguing in relationship to China-

American relationship and how denial of support due to the fact that America has an

 

anti-Communist policy at the time, greatly affecting China’s ability to rebuild itself as a country, after the Second World War.

Cultural Relativism

 

Cultural relativism is an important aspect towards understanding this relationship between China and America. I am not arguing that Cultural relativism is the absolute criteria for any other country, but a more expanded criteria to understand the circumstances of China, following the Second World War. America, as a Western nation, took part and won World War II, making it a country who is superior to the East or Asian countries. Cultural relativism is defined as having norms and realities that exist subjected to a certain culture, and by which there are no universal norms that people are held to (Beghramin, 2015). For the sake of this argument, I am assuming that there is a certain degree of understanding for a culture, to judge another country based on their own subjective criteria. It is immoral, but has held and stopped international affairs with China. I acknowledge that there are certain universal morals, but I will be evaluating them based on the circumstances of how China dealt with communism and their basis of subjective and societal morals are more cultural relative and bound.

Historical Overview

 

America, during Eisenhower’s administration, was trying to recover from the Second World War. At this time, their political views were swayed to secure that Communism would not create America’s perspectives. Eisenhower initially stated that he would not sign or endorse a multinational human rights treaty (Donnelly, 2017, 366). Furthermore, this is what led to how the Bricker Amendment that stopped the Americans from taking up civil and political human rights or foreign influence (Kaufman, et al. 1988, 309). The main issue of both Communism in international affairs and preventing the basic human rights in the American congress was because of the Bricker Amendment (Donnelly, 2017, 366). The Bricker Amendment was considered to deter from what Americans viewed as “back-door Communism”(Kaufman, et al.

1988, 310).The self-proclaimed leader of the free world was acting as if human rights concerns

 

were undermined by the attack of Communism from the Soviet Russia (2017). For America, it was seemingly that to be anti-communist and anti-human rights and anti-international influence was subjected.

America’s room for anti-Communism is clear throughout the information provided.

 

America’s perspective for this kind of thinking has been demonized since the First World War. Communism/Socialism is a bad ideology and using it on a political level will never progress a country, while suspecting those Communist perspectives (W. H. D. R, 1948, 440). My perspective is not that Communism is the best approach to creating a country, my concern is when you put all proposed legislation and propositions, in a Federal senate, to a demonized Communist ideal just too legally and unanimously dismiss it.

China was more of a country trying to create good profit, although China was solely based upon a Communist margin, there were logical issues that constrained China due to a constant civil war that enveloped a country. While China was confronted with a civil war that desecrated the country, with constant civil war for power between countries, they still had to fight in the new World War, the second. I am not saying that these restrains or cultural relativism are any excuse to allow China to do whatever they wanted, but this is what Chairman Mao thought was right, in the given context, and by creating distant relationships with America greatly affected how China grew as a country (Pauly, 2012, 829). As China faced its greatest challenges as a nation, unsure whether they were to assert a Communism country, based upon many drastically different politics that enveloped China during the end of the Kuomintang Government, played a significant role in how China was to be rebuilt (Hookham, 1979, 170).

The wars that happened after the Kuomintang government was mainly because of two ideological giants that existed (Anstey, 1987, 316). The Communist Party of China was more of

 

a balance between the Russian and the America’s ideologies. With China having their own civil war of many different politics, Japanese people sat back and invaded China many times to gain power over China or at least assert a better relationship directly with the Chinese government (Civil War in China, 1924, 527). It was only then, that the constant struggle for a nation, China, became an issue for American politics.

With China under drastic disarray, due to the Kuomintang government, Peking government, Chairman Mao’s new Communism, Japanese people, and even the people uprising and using coup d’état as a way for Capitalist revolutions, China was certainly bound and constant civil war to a degree that is unimaginable (1924). America used this communist idea, their own perceived idea of Communism, that influenced countries like China and Russia’s ideal, and believed it would take over their country (Kaufman, 1988, 310). For America, Communism ideals were distraught and only could harm the country, even though China and Russia as a state have both succeeded through civil war.

In China’s defense against the use of America’s anti-Communism, I would argue Maslow’ Hierarchy of Needs would be relevant for the development of China without American influence of anti-Communism, as to why Cultural relativism is relevant to the evaluation of China’s crisis (Johns, 2017). I am not saying that China did everything right and ethically correct, but due to Nixon’s presidential system and international affairs, that was China’s only option. I would argue being able to build a country in relevance with the Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is based upon a socio-psychology that defines the satisfaction of moving up the ladder of growth in an individual. The layers of the pyramid begins with Psychological – the sleep, rest, food, water, and basic needs that are required for a human being. The next layer is security- whether an individual has the safety, security, money and

 

personal wellness are evaluated at this level of satisfaction. The layer above is love and belonging, the sense of having relationships and how they impact a person. As a country, I can expand these relationships to the state level, because it impacts how a state is going to build itself when it has these levels satisfied. China was not going to take any understanding from Americans, especially when their policy is anti-Communism and their presidents were very

anti-Communist. This is why a heavier evaluation is required to understand a nation that is completely different from America. China was still building its own ability to supply water, food, basic security for their citizens.

To assume that a certain political structure was enough to be a part of the international community is irrelevant. Assuming to disregard China as an insufficient nation is like saying that to judge another person’s ability, disregarding the context of how they are, and the situation they were in to be politically capable is not an appropriate criteria. America’s assumptions and judgements can be equivalent to saying that they can hate other nations just because of what they think they believe. Let us assume a hypothetical, looking at Freedom of Speech. Let us also assume three different people. Two people at the national airport terminal. He is with his colleague chatting about an issue at work. The third person would sit back and listen to their conversation, named Bob. The two people who are chatting ends up saying a derogatory comment, such as slavery, homophobic, racist or cynical. The only other problem would be that Bob only heard the derogatory comment and nothing else in the conversation. Yet, Bob acts on this cynical ideology and tells a Terminal Special officer about it. To be able to act on this without situation or context would make any conversation very cynical. To think that because you had this idea of a person, because of a comment he said, without context or situation of the conversation, and to act upon this and tell an official because of what Bob thinks, is what is

 

cynical. My point is not that we should not repress phobic language, but without understanding why they talk about it or the context in which they are talking about is toxic. This scenario would be similar to America making assumptions based entirely because of the fact that China has declared itself to be Communist country. China certainly endured many political opinions and was only building itself to be able to handle the growing economy and globalization.

China already resisted the capitalist theory, Japanese rule, Chinese dynasties rule, and

 

far-right wing thinkers. China has already been brought back down to the bare minimum of what they had, due to all this fighting and a coup d’état, and whether it was sure going to be successful because of a communist ideal. For China to be able to develop a country to prosper so they can be concerned with other issues would be relevant to Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. China also went through a famine for a segment of time, where even the basic levels of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs were affected (Johns, 2017). Therefore, having an understanding over a more thorough understanding of the issues that countries have had to deal with, which was cultural relativism and understanding why this was a problem. I am not saying that Cultural Relativism is an excuse for China’s actions and human rights violations, but when America begins to ignore another country based on what they think to be the conclusion of their political view and disregard them as so, which creates foundations for political and civil human rights violations.

How America created issues for China’s human rights. (Argument) In contemporary China, China was already having a war for what is now called People’s Republic of China. Despite all these attacks on China’s land to occupy, there were many distinct political changes. China was trying to change from a democratic to a communist ideological country, due to the change in government and the civil wars that were led from Japan after the First World War (Donnelly, 2007). At the same time, America was giving Turkey and Greece financial aid,

 

although they both have had civil wars that changed their respective governments (Merrill, 2006, 32). After the Tiananmen Square incident, China was evidently in killing their citizens, but America themselves stopped financial support for China’s actions (Donnelly, 2007). American initially stopped their funding, due to China’s action in the Tiananmen Square incident, but it was evident that it was also because China was communist. Greece and Turkey stayed away from a communist government rule, but America was still giving funding to China with Greece and Turkey. I am not saying that because America’s direct financial funding has affected China’s human rights, but it certainly played a role in denying China’s ability to build their country, then form proper policies for ensuring human rights. In relationship with Maslow’s Hierarchy, if a country cannot have food, water, or the basic security as a nation, they cannot build on aspects for self-actualizing and optimal qualities. Self-actualizing as in securing the demands of other nations’ through the United Nations councils, for example the human rights that grant every person in a state political, social and financial rights. Although human rights in China was a violation in 1949, the constant struggle trying to change ideologies after a civil war is evident in holding a country back from building a nation functional with human rights (2007). I am not arguing to excuse China for any of the atrocities committed, but if America was consistent with their support with nations, then there could have been better foreign relationships and negotiations to help build China’s human rights platforms. America and being one of the permanent members of the United Nations does play a big role in decision making towards China and building from its ideological and civil war (2007).

For the uses of Cultural relativism, it would change how America is looked at, as being the highest standard of morals (Kaufman et al. 1988, 309). America is using a universalism approach to critique China’s morals based upon what they believe are justified. This is why

 

America should have judged China’s actions on a more cultural relativist approach, rather than denying proper relationships based on what China says is Communism. I am not saying that cultural relativism is the greatest philosophical theory, I am arguing that China would be analyzed with a more understanding approach.

In the Asian values argument, Donnelly talks about how cultural relativism arguments are contingent and consistent to their specific cultures. He argues how the cultural relativist approach is inconsistent with their Asian values argument. He argues cultures have always changed and configured itself to what is relevant to current day societies, for example democracy and adequate governments. He argues that if Asians do something different back in the day, that Asians do not wish to change that they do now (Donnelly, 2007, 163).

My Asian values’ argument is not that cultures and human rights abuses are excused because they are of different cultures. My argument is that cultures can judge themselves, due to understanding of context and situation that culture is dealing with, rather than having other countries judge them based on universalistic approach. By having a West meets East argument of critiquing and judging each other’s leaders on the decisions they make, they make West look like the moral and cultural superior ones. Since Western countries think that Communism has affected them detrimentally. America’s universalism approach to Communism is a human rights’ hazard. My argument is more formulated on the premise that countries should be able to judge themselves, because they understand the situation, circumstance and how they are, rather than having countries use a Universalist approach to judge each other, disregarding a country’s critical problem. Because of Communism, America saw a need to contain it and ward against it. Cultural relativism is not excusing China for human rights violations, it is expanding America’s ability to critique and make judgements based on their perspectives.

 

In conclusion, I have looked at America’s perspective of anti-Communism, how

 

anti-communism was created and how taking a more cultural relativist perspective can change their analysis of China. Although these strained perspectives of anti-Communism began in the First World War, by keeping a universalistic perspective have harmed the progression to China’s human rights.

America has been a seemingly very promising and prominent country, but it has stopped and is no longer the most powerful country since WWII. They have been the country of the Free World, and have been one of the most powerful leaders in the World’s history. Although America has won most of their wars, and created one of the powerful nations during the four US administrations, their power is subject to be skeptical. They have not been the strongest and a model country, because the way USA policy is detrimental and unstable with how their country turns out to be, when looked upon critically over the three US administrations after World War

  1. How America’s criticism of China’s Communism has directly affected China’s human rights and development and stopped international development and human rights. I will argue that the US critique from assumptions that America is universally the best nation in the world, rather than being a culturally unique and ideal country for the West. Countries do not grow as a state the same way, then why does America model itself as the ideal standard. I will look directly into the relationship of China after the Second World War, while being thorough with Cultural relativism argues that America’s culture and assumptions are relative, not widely-accepted, in the years following the Second World War. I will show how America’s own perceived information regarding the conditions of China, can lead to impulsive short sighted decisions that affect important aspects in China’s human rights and development.

In my argument, I will be talking about how it is detrimental to make the assumptions that America has made for China throughout the 2nd World War. By how assumptions have created a critical barrier to stop and created determinants towards human rights and the existence of Chinese citizens. I will be looking directly into arguments such as, China has no GDP, because they refuse to accept Western ideal of critiques. I will also look into the assumption that

 

because China is communist, their policy is directly detrimental to Chinese citizens. I acknowledge that this is how the twenty-first century turned out, but I am arguing that if America did not have this kind of critique, America would not need to deal with China in both the 2nd World War and the Korean War. This was due to America’s perception of China and how Communism was a bad governmental policy for a country. I will critically analyze using a cultural relativist perspective, as to the flaws with the way that America has chosen to win “their” wars. My argument is based upon the circumstances and the situations that China has been put under when they were considered a new country. This is critical because there was no political uprising from the creation of the People Republic of China. I will argue a more in depth analysis about the circumstances after World War II and philosophical theories that may have contributed to the construction of China and how America’s quick assumptions and demonization have created issues for structural progression, even in regards to human rights.

As human rights is an issue for many countries, the basis of continual human rights is in the United Nations Declaration of Human rights. The United Nations human rights are defined as rights given to everyone, because they are human (Universal Human Rights, 1998). For the sake of this argument, I will be arguing that certain rights, which are given without discrimination, are being denied because a country’s status and support is not fulfilled and thus causing issues towards building a secure and stable economy. I will be arguing in relationship to China-

American relationship and how denial of support due to the fact that America has an

 

anti-Communist policy at the time, greatly affecting China’s ability to rebuild itself as a country, after the Second World War.

Cultural Relativism

 

Cultural relativism is an important aspect towards understanding this relationship between China and America. I am not arguing that Cultural relativism is the absolute criteria for any other country, but a more expanded criteria to understand the circumstances of China, following the Second World War. America, as a Western nation, took part and won World War II, making it a country who is superior to the East or Asian countries. Cultural relativism is defined as having norms and realities that exist subjected to a certain culture, and by which there are no universal norms that people are held to (Beghramin, 2015). For the sake of this argument, I am assuming that there is a certain degree of understanding for a culture, to judge another country based on their own subjective criteria. It is immoral, but has held and stopped international affairs with China. I acknowledge that there are certain universal morals, but I will be evaluating them based on the circumstances of how China dealt with communism and their basis of subjective and societal morals are more cultural relative and bound.

Historical Overview

 

America, during Eisenhower’s administration, was trying to recover from the Second World War. At this time, their political views were swayed to secure that Communism would not create America’s perspectives. Eisenhower initially stated that he would not sign or endorse a multinational human rights treaty (Donnelly, 2017, 366). Furthermore, this is what led to how the Bricker Amendment that stopped the Americans from taking up civil and political human rights or foreign influence (Kaufman, et al. 1988, 309). The main issue of both Communism in international affairs and preventing the basic human rights in the American congress was because of the Bricker Amendment (Donnelly, 2017, 366). The Bricker Amendment was considered to deter from what Americans viewed as “back-door Communism”(Kaufman, et al.

1988, 310).The self-proclaimed leader of the free world was acting as if human rights concerns

 

were undermined by the attack of Communism from the Soviet Russia (2017). For America, it was seemingly that to be anti-communist and anti-human rights and anti-international influence was subjected.

America’s room for anti-Communism is clear throughout the information provided.

 

America’s perspective for this kind of thinking has been demonized since the First World War. Communism/Socialism is a bad ideology and using it on a political level will never progress a country, while suspecting those Communist perspectives (W. H. D. R, 1948, 440). My perspective is not that Communism is the best approach to creating a country, my concern is when you put all proposed legislation and propositions, in a Federal senate, to a demonized Communist ideal just too legally and unanimously dismiss it.

China was more of a country trying to create good profit, although China was solely based upon a Communist margin, there were logical issues that constrained China due to a constant civil war that enveloped a country. While China was confronted with a civil war that desecrated the country, with constant civil war for power between countries, they still had to fight in the new World War, the second. I am not saying that these restrains or cultural relativism are any excuse to allow China to do whatever they wanted, but this is what Chairman Mao thought was right, in the given context, and by creating distant relationships with America greatly affected how China grew as a country (Pauly, 2012, 829). As China faced its greatest challenges as a nation, unsure whether they were to assert a Communism country, based upon many drastically different politics that enveloped China during the end of the Kuomintang Government, played a significant role in how China was to be rebuilt (Hookham, 1979, 170).

The wars that happened after the Kuomintang government was mainly because of two ideological giants that existed (Anstey, 1987, 316). The Communist Party of China was more of

 

a balance between the Russian and the America’s ideologies. With China having their own civil war of many different politics, Japanese people sat back and invaded China many times to gain power over China or at least assert a better relationship directly with the Chinese government (Civil War in China, 1924, 527). It was only then, that the constant struggle for a nation, China, became an issue for American politics.

With China under drastic disarray, due to the Kuomintang government, Peking government, Chairman Mao’s new Communism, Japanese people, and even the people uprising and using coup d’état as a way for Capitalist revolutions, China was certainly bound and constant civil war to a degree that is unimaginable (1924). America used this communist idea, their own perceived idea of Communism, that influenced countries like China and Russia’s ideal, and believed it would take over their country (Kaufman, 1988, 310). For America, Communism ideals were distraught and only could harm the country, even though China and Russia as a state have both succeeded through civil war.

In China’s defense against the use of America’s anti-Communism, I would argue Maslow’ Hierarchy of Needs would be relevant for the development of China without American influence of anti-Communism, as to why Cultural relativism is relevant to the evaluation of China’s crisis (Johns, 2017). I am not saying that China did everything right and ethically correct, but due to Nixon’s presidential system and international affairs, that was China’s only option. I would argue being able to build a country in relevance with the Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is based upon a socio-psychology that defines the satisfaction of moving up the ladder of growth in an individual. The layers of the pyramid begins with Psychological – the sleep, rest, food, water, and basic needs that are required for a human being. The next layer is security- whether an individual has the safety, security, money and

 

personal wellness are evaluated at this level of satisfaction. The layer above is love and belonging, the sense of having relationships and how they impact a person. As a country, I can expand these relationships to the state level, because it impacts how a state is going to build itself when it has these levels satisfied. China was not going to take any understanding from Americans, especially when their policy is anti-Communism and their presidents were very

anti-Communist. This is why a heavier evaluation is required to understand a nation that is completely different from America. China was still building its own ability to supply water, food, basic security for their citizens.

To assume that a certain political structure was enough to be a part of the international community is irrelevant. Assuming to disregard China as an insufficient nation is like saying that to judge another person’s ability, disregarding the context of how they are, and the situation they were in to be politically capable is not an appropriate criteria. America’s assumptions and judgements can be equivalent to saying that they can hate other nations just because of what they think they believe. Let us assume a hypothetical, looking at Freedom of Speech. Let us also assume three different people. Two people at the national airport terminal. He is with his colleague chatting about an issue at work. The third person would sit back and listen to their conversation, named Bob. The two people who are chatting ends up saying a derogatory comment, such as slavery, homophobic, racist or cynical. The only other problem would be that Bob only heard the derogatory comment and nothing else in the conversation. Yet, Bob acts on this cynical ideology and tells a Terminal Special officer about it. To be able to act on this without situation or context would make any conversation very cynical. To think that because you had this idea of a person, because of a comment he said, without context or situation of the conversation, and to act upon this and tell an official because of what Bob thinks, is what is

 

cynical. My point is not that we should not repress phobic language, but without understanding why they talk about it or the context in which they are talking about is toxic. This scenario would be similar to America making assumptions based entirely because of the fact that China has declared itself to be Communist country. China certainly endured many political opinions and was only building itself to be able to handle the growing economy and globalization.

China already resisted the capitalist theory, Japanese rule, Chinese dynasties rule, and

 

far-right wing thinkers. China has already been brought back down to the bare minimum of what they had, due to all this fighting and a coup d’état, and whether it was sure going to be successful because of a communist ideal. For China to be able to develop a country to prosper so they can be concerned with other issues would be relevant to Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. China also went through a famine for a segment of time, where even the basic levels of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs were affected (Johns, 2017). Therefore, having an understanding over a more thorough understanding of the issues that countries have had to deal with, which was cultural relativism and understanding why this was a problem. I am not saying that Cultural Relativism is an excuse for China’s actions and human rights violations, but when America begins to ignore another country based on what they think to be the conclusion of their political view and disregard them as so, which creates foundations for political and civil human rights violations.

How America created issues for China’s human rights. (Argument) In contemporary China, China was already having a war for what is now called People’s Republic of China. Despite all these attacks on China’s land to occupy, there were many distinct political changes. China was trying to change from a democratic to a communist ideological country, due to the change in government and the civil wars that were led from Japan after the First World War (Donnelly, 2007). At the same time, America was giving Turkey and Greece financial aid,

 

although they both have had civil wars that changed their respective governments (Merrill, 2006, 32). After the Tiananmen Square incident, China was evidently in killing their citizens, but America themselves stopped financial support for China’s actions (Donnelly, 2007). American initially stopped their funding, due to China’s action in the Tiananmen Square incident, but it was evident that it was also because China was communist. Greece and Turkey stayed away from a communist government rule, but America was still giving funding to China with Greece and Turkey. I am not saying that because America’s direct financial funding has affected China’s human rights, but it certainly played a role in denying China’s ability to build their country, then form proper policies for ensuring human rights. In relationship with Maslow’s Hierarchy, if a country cannot have food, water, or the basic security as a nation, they cannot build on aspects for self-actualizing and optimal qualities. Self-actualizing as in securing the demands of other nations’ through the United Nations councils, for example the human rights that grant every person in a state political, social and financial rights. Although human rights in China was a violation in 1949, the constant struggle trying to change ideologies after a civil war is evident in holding a country back from building a nation functional with human rights (2007). I am not arguing to excuse China for any of the atrocities committed, but if America was consistent with their support with nations, then there could have been better foreign relationships and negotiations to help build China’s human rights platforms. America and being one of the permanent members of the United Nations does play a big role in decision making towards China and building from its ideological and civil war (2007).

For the uses of Cultural relativism, it would change how America is looked at, as being the highest standard of morals (Kaufman et al. 1988, 309). America is using a universalism approach to critique China’s morals based upon what they believe are justified. This is why

 

America should have judged China’s actions on a more cultural relativist approach, rather than denying proper relationships based on what China says is Communism. I am not saying that cultural relativism is the greatest philosophical theory, I am arguing that China would be analyzed with a more understanding approach.

In the Asian values argument, Donnelly talks about how cultural relativism arguments are contingent and consistent to their specific cultures. He argues how the cultural relativist approach is inconsistent with their Asian values argument. He argues cultures have always changed and configured itself to what is relevant to current day societies, for example democracy and adequate governments. He argues that if Asians do something different back in the day, that Asians do not wish to change that they do now (Donnelly, 2007, 163).

My Asian values’ argument is not that cultures and human rights abuses are excused because they are of different cultures. My argument is that cultures can judge themselves, due to understanding of context and situation that culture is dealing with, rather than having other countries judge them based on universalistic approach. By having a West meets East argument of critiquing and judging each other’s leaders on the decisions they make, they make West look like the moral and cultural superior ones. Since Western countries think that Communism has affected them detrimentally. America’s universalism approach to Communism is a human rights’ hazard. My argument is more formulated on the premise that countries should be able to judge themselves, because they understand the situation, circumstance and how they are, rather than having countries use a Universalist approach to judge each other, disregarding a country’s critical problem. Because of Communism, America saw a need to contain it and ward against it. Cultural relativism is not excusing China for human rights violations, it is expanding America’s ability to critique and make judgements based on their perspectives.

 

In conclusion, I have looked at America’s perspective of anti-Communism, how

 

anti-communism was created and how taking a more cultural relativist perspective can change their analysis of China. Although these strained perspectives of anti-Communism began in the First World War, by keeping a universalistic perspective have harmed the progression to China’s human rights.

America has been a seemingly very promising and prominent country, but it has stopped and is no longer the most powerful country since WWII. They have been the country of the Free World, and have been one of the most powerful leaders in the World’s history. Although America has won most of their wars, and created one of the powerful nations during the four US administrations, their power is subject to be skeptical. They have not been the strongest and a model country, because the way USA policy is detrimental and unstable with how their country turns out to be, when looked upon critically over the three US administrations after World War

  1. How America’s criticism of China’s Communism has directly affected China’s human rights and development and stopped international development and human rights. I will argue that the US critique from assumptions that America is universally the best nation in the world, rather than being a culturally unique and ideal country for the West. Countries do not grow as a state the same way, then why does America model itself as the ideal standard. I will look directly into the relationship of China after the Second World War, while being thorough with Cultural relativism argues that America’s culture and assumptions are relative, not widely-accepted, in the years following the Second World War. I will show how America’s own perceived information regarding the conditions of China, can lead to impulsive short sighted decisions that affect important aspects in China’s human rights and development.

In my argument, I will be talking about how it is detrimental to make the assumptions that America has made for China throughout the 2nd World War. By how assumptions have created a critical barrier to stop and created determinants towards human rights and the existence of Chinese citizens. I will be looking directly into arguments such as, China has no GDP, because they refuse to accept Western ideal of critiques. I will also look into the assumption that

 

because China is communist, their policy is directly detrimental to Chinese citizens. I acknowledge that this is how the twenty-first century turned out, but I am arguing that if America did not have this kind of critique, America would not need to deal with China in both the 2nd World War and the Korean War. This was due to America’s perception of China and how Communism was a bad governmental policy for a country. I will critically analyze using a cultural relativist perspective, as to the flaws with the way that America has chosen to win “their” wars. My argument is based upon the circumstances and the situations that China has been put under when they were considered a new country. This is critical because there was no political uprising from the creation of the People Republic of China. I will argue a more in depth analysis about the circumstances after World War II and philosophical theories that may have contributed to the construction of China and how America’s quick assumptions and demonization have created issues for structural progression, even in regards to human rights.

As human rights is an issue for many countries, the basis of continual human rights is in the United Nations Declaration of Human rights. The United Nations human rights are defined as rights given to everyone, because they are human (Universal Human Rights, 1998). For the sake of this argument, I will be arguing that certain rights, which are given without discrimination, are being denied because a country’s status and support is not fulfilled and thus causing issues towards building a secure and stable economy. I will be arguing in relationship to China-

American relationship and how denial of support due to the fact that America has an

 

anti-Communist policy at the time, greatly affecting China’s ability to rebuild itself as a country, after the Second World War.

Cultural Relativism

 

Cultural relativism is an important aspect towards understanding this relationship between China and America. I am not arguing that Cultural relativism is the absolute criteria for any other country, but a more expanded criteria to understand the circumstances of China, following the Second World War. America, as a Western nation, took part and won World War II, making it a country who is superior to the East or Asian countries. Cultural relativism is defined as having norms and realities that exist subjected to a certain culture, and by which there are no universal norms that people are held to (Beghramin, 2015). For the sake of this argument, I am assuming that there is a certain degree of understanding for a culture, to judge another country based on their own subjective criteria. It is immoral, but has held and stopped international affairs with China. I acknowledge that there are certain universal morals, but I will be evaluating them based on the circumstances of how China dealt with communism and their basis of subjective and societal morals are more cultural relative and bound.

Historical Overview

 

America, during Eisenhower’s administration, was trying to recover from the Second World War. At this time, their political views were swayed to secure that Communism would not create America’s perspectives. Eisenhower initially stated that he would not sign or endorse a multinational human rights treaty (Donnelly, 2017, 366). Furthermore, this is what led to how the Bricker Amendment that stopped the Americans from taking up civil and political human rights or foreign influence (Kaufman, et al. 1988, 309). The main issue of both Communism in international affairs and preventing the basic human rights in the American congress was because of the Bricker Amendment (Donnelly, 2017, 366). The Bricker Amendment was considered to deter from what Americans viewed as “back-door Communism”(Kaufman, et al.

1988, 310).The self-proclaimed leader of the free world was acting as if human rights concerns

 

were undermined by the attack of Communism from the Soviet Russia (2017). For America, it was seemingly that to be anti-communist and anti-human rights and anti-international influence was subjected.

America’s room for anti-Communism is clear throughout the information provided.

 

America’s perspective for this kind of thinking has been demonized since the First World War. Communism/Socialism is a bad ideology and using it on a political level will never progress a country, while suspecting those Communist perspectives (W. H. D. R, 1948, 440). My perspective is not that Communism is the best approach to creating a country, my concern is when you put all proposed legislation and propositions, in a Federal senate, to a demonized Communist ideal just too legally and unanimously dismiss it.

China was more of a country trying to create good profit, although China was solely based upon a Communist margin, there were logical issues that constrained China due to a constant civil war that enveloped a country. While China was confronted with a civil war that desecrated the country, with constant civil war for power between countries, they still had to fight in the new World War, the second. I am not saying that these restrains or cultural relativism are any excuse to allow China to do whatever they wanted, but this is what Chairman Mao thought was right, in the given context, and by creating distant relationships with America greatly affected how China grew as a country (Pauly, 2012, 829). As China faced its greatest challenges as a nation, unsure whether they were to assert a Communism country, based upon many drastically different politics that enveloped China during the end of the Kuomintang Government, played a significant role in how China was to be rebuilt (Hookham, 1979, 170).

The wars that happened after the Kuomintang government was mainly because of two ideological giants that existed (Anstey, 1987, 316). The Communist Party of China was more of

 

a balance between the Russian and the America’s ideologies. With China having their own civil war of many different politics, Japanese people sat back and invaded China many times to gain power over China or at least assert a better relationship directly with the Chinese government (Civil War in China, 1924, 527). It was only then, that the constant struggle for a nation, China, became an issue for American politics.

With China under drastic disarray, due to the Kuomintang government, Peking government, Chairman Mao’s new Communism, Japanese people, and even the people uprising and using coup d’état as a way for Capitalist revolutions, China was certainly bound and constant civil war to a degree that is unimaginable (1924). America used this communist idea, their own perceived idea of Communism, that influenced countries like China and Russia’s ideal, and believed it would take over their country (Kaufman, 1988, 310). For America, Communism ideals were distraught and only could harm the country, even though China and Russia as a state have both succeeded through civil war.

In China’s defense against the use of America’s anti-Communism, I would argue Maslow’ Hierarchy of Needs would be relevant for the development of China without American influence of anti-Communism, as to why Cultural relativism is relevant to the evaluation of China’s crisis (Johns, 2017). I am not saying that China did everything right and ethically correct, but due to Nixon’s presidential system and international affairs, that was China’s only option. I would argue being able to build a country in relevance with the Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is based upon a socio-psychology that defines the satisfaction of moving up the ladder of growth in an individual. The layers of the pyramid begins with Psychological – the sleep, rest, food, water, and basic needs that are required for a human being. The next layer is security- whether an individual has the safety, security, money and

 

personal wellness are evaluated at this level of satisfaction. The layer above is love and belonging, the sense of having relationships and how they impact a person. As a country, I can expand these relationships to the state level, because it impacts how a state is going to build itself when it has these levels satisfied. China was not going to take any understanding from Americans, especially when their policy is anti-Communism and their presidents were very

anti-Communist. This is why a heavier evaluation is required to understand a nation that is completely different from America. China was still building its own ability to supply water, food, basic security for their citizens.

To assume that a certain political structure was enough to be a part of the international community is irrelevant. Assuming to disregard China as an insufficient nation is like saying that to judge another person’s ability, disregarding the context of how they are, and the situation they were in to be politically capable is not an appropriate criteria. America’s assumptions and judgements can be equivalent to saying that they can hate other nations just because of what they think they believe. Let us assume a hypothetical, looking at Freedom of Speech. Let us also assume three different people. Two people at the national airport terminal. He is with his colleague chatting about an issue at work. The third person would sit back and listen to their conversation, named Bob. The two people who are chatting ends up saying a derogatory comment, such as slavery, homophobic, racist or cynical. The only other problem would be that Bob only heard the derogatory comment and nothing else in the conversation. Yet, Bob acts on this cynical ideology and tells a Terminal Special officer about it. To be able to act on this without situation or context would make any conversation very cynical. To think that because you had this idea of a person, because of a comment he said, without context or situation of the conversation, and to act upon this and tell an official because of what Bob thinks, is what is

 

cynical. My point is not that we should not repress phobic language, but without understanding why they talk about it or the context in which they are talking about is toxic. This scenario would be similar to America making assumptions based entirely because of the fact that China has declared itself to be Communist country. China certainly endured many political opinions and was only building itself to be able to handle the growing economy and globalization.

China already resisted the capitalist theory, Japanese rule, Chinese dynasties rule, and

 

far-right wing thinkers. China has already been brought back down to the bare minimum of what they had, due to all this fighting and a coup d’état, and whether it was sure going to be successful because of a communist ideal. For China to be able to develop a country to prosper so they can be concerned with other issues would be relevant to Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. China also went through a famine for a segment of time, where even the basic levels of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs were affected (Johns, 2017). Therefore, having an understanding over a more thorough understanding of the issues that countries have had to deal with, which was cultural relativism and understanding why this was a problem. I am not saying that Cultural Relativism is an excuse for China’s actions and human rights violations, but when America begins to ignore another country based on what they think to be the conclusion of their political view and disregard them as so, which creates foundations for political and civil human rights violations.

How America created issues for China’s human rights. (Argument) In contemporary China, China was already having a war for what is now called People’s Republic of China. Despite all these attacks on China’s land to occupy, there were many distinct political changes. China was trying to change from a democratic to a communist ideological country, due to the change in government and the civil wars that were led from Japan after the First World War (Donnelly, 2007). At the same time, America was giving Turkey and Greece financial aid,

 

although they both have had civil wars that changed their respective governments (Merrill, 2006, 32). After the Tiananmen Square incident, China was evidently in killing their citizens, but America themselves stopped financial support for China’s actions (Donnelly, 2007). American initially stopped their funding, due to China’s action in the Tiananmen Square incident, but it was evident that it was also because China was communist. Greece and Turkey stayed away from a communist government rule, but America was still giving funding to China with Greece and Turkey. I am not saying that because America’s direct financial funding has affected China’s human rights, but it certainly played a role in denying China’s ability to build their country, then form proper policies for ensuring human rights. In relationship with Maslow’s Hierarchy, if a country cannot have food, water, or the basic security as a nation, they cannot build on aspects for self-actualizing and optimal qualities. Self-actualizing as in securing the demands of other nations’ through the United Nations councils, for example the human rights that grant every person in a state political, social and financial rights. Although human rights in China was a violation in 1949, the constant struggle trying to change ideologies after a civil war is evident in holding a country back from building a nation functional with human rights (2007). I am not arguing to excuse China for any of the atrocities committed, but if America was consistent with their support with nations, then there could have been better foreign relationships and negotiations to help build China’s human rights platforms. America and being one of the permanent members of the United Nations does play a big role in decision making towards China and building from its ideological and civil war (2007).

For the uses of Cultural relativism, it would change how America is looked at, as being the highest standard of morals (Kaufman et al. 1988, 309). America is using a universalism approach to critique China’s morals based upon what they believe are justified. This is why

 

America should have judged China’s actions on a more cultural relativist approach, rather than denying proper relationships based on what China says is Communism. I am not saying that cultural relativism is the greatest philosophical theory, I am arguing that China would be analyzed with a more understanding approach.

In the Asian values argument, Donnelly talks about how cultural relativism arguments are contingent and consistent to their specific cultures. He argues how the cultural relativist approach is inconsistent with their Asian values argument. He argues cultures have always changed and configured itself to what is relevant to current day societies, for example democracy and adequate governments. He argues that if Asians do something different back in the day, that Asians do not wish to change that they do now (Donnelly, 2007, 163).

My Asian values’ argument is not that cultures and human rights abuses are excused because they are of different cultures. My argument is that cultures can judge themselves, due to understanding of context and situation that culture is dealing with, rather than having other countries judge them based on universalistic approach. By having a West meets East argument of critiquing and judging each other’s leaders on the decisions they make, they make West look like the moral and cultural superior ones. Since Western countries think that Communism has affected them detrimentally. America’s universalism approach to Communism is a human rights’ hazard. My argument is more formulated on the premise that countries should be able to judge themselves, because they understand the situation, circumstance and how they are, rather than having countries use a Universalist approach to judge each other, disregarding a country’s critical problem. Because of Communism, America saw a need to contain it and ward against it. Cultural relativism is not excusing China for human rights violations, it is expanding America’s ability to critique and make judgements based on their perspectives.

 

In conclusion, I have looked at America’s perspective of anti-Communism, how

 

anti-communism was created and how taking a more cultural relativist perspective can change their analysis of China. Althoug

America has been a seemingly very promising and prominent country, but it has stopped and is no longer the most powerful country since WWII. They have been the country of the Free World, and have been one of the most powerful leaders in the World’s history. Although America has won most of their wars, and created one of the powerful nations during the four US administrations, their power is subject to be skeptical. They have not been the strongest and a model country, because the way USA policy is detrimental and unstable with how their country turns out to be, when looked upon critically over the three US administrations after World War

How America’s criticism of China’s Communism has directly affected China’s human rights and development and stopped international development and human rights. I will argue that the US critique from assumptions that America is universally the best nation in the world, rather than being a culturally unique and ideal country for the West. Countries do not grow as a state the same way, then why does America model itself as the ideal standard. I will look directly into the relationship of China after the Second World War, while being thorough with Cultural relativism argues that America’s culture and assumptions are relative, not widely-accepted, in the years following the Second World War. I will show how America’s own perceived information regarding the conditions of China, can lead to impulsive short sighted decisions that affect important aspects in China’s human rights and development.
In my argument, I will be talking about how it is detrimental to make the assumptions that America has made for China throughout the 2nd World War. By how assumptions have created a critical barrier to stop and created determinants towards human rights and the existence of Chinese citizens. I will be looking directly into arguments such as, China has no GDP, because they refuse to accept Western ideal of critiques. I will also look into the assumption that

 

because China is communist, their policy is directly detrimental to Chinese citizens. I acknowledge that this is how the twenty-first century turned out, but I am arguing that if America did not have this kind of critique, America would not need to deal with China in both the 2nd World War and the Korean War. This was due to America’s perception of China and how Communism was a bad governmental policy for a country. I will critically analyze using a cultural relativist perspective, as to the flaws with the way that America has chosen to win “their” wars. My argument is based upon the circumstances and the situations that China has been put under when they were considered a new country. This is critical because there was no political uprising from the creation of the People Republic of China. I will argue a more in depth analysis about the circumstances after World War II and philosophical theories that may have contributed to the construction of China and how America’s quick assumptions and demonization have created issues for structural progression, even in regards to human rights.

As human rights is an issue for many countries, the basis of continual human rights is in the United Nations Declaration of Human rights. The United Nations human rights are defined as rights given to everyone, because they are human (Universal Human Rights, 1998). For the sake of this argument, I will be arguing that certain rights, which are given without discrimination, are being denied because a country’s status and support is not fulfilled and thus causing issues towards building a secure and stable economy. I will be arguing in relationship to China-

American relationship and how denial of support due to the fact that America has an

 

anti-Communist policy at the time, greatly affecting China’s ability to rebuild itself as a country, after the Second World War.

Cultural Relativism

 

Cultural relativism is an important aspect towards understanding this relationship between China and America. I am not arguing that Cultural relativism is the absolute criteria for any other country, but a more expanded criteria to understand the circumstances of China, following the Second World War. America, as a Western nation, took part and won World War II, making it a country who is superior to the East or Asian countries. Cultural relativism is defined as having norms and realities that exist subjected to a certain culture, and by which there are no universal norms that people are held to (Beghramin, 2015). For the sake of this argument, I am assuming that there is a certain degree of understanding for a culture, to judge another country based on their own subjective criteria. It is immoral, but has held and stopped international affairs with China. I acknowledge that there are certain universal morals, but I will be evaluating them based on the circumstances of how China dealt with communism and their basis of subjective and societal morals are more cultural relative and bound.

Historical Overview

 

America, during Eisenhower’s administration, was trying to recover from the Second World War. At this time, their political views were swayed to secure that Communism would not create America’s perspectives. Eisenhower initially stated that he would not sign or endorse a multinational human rights treaty (Donnelly, 2017, 366). Furthermore, this is what led to how the Bricker Amendment that stopped the Americans from taking up civil and political human rights or foreign influence (Kaufman, et al. 1988, 309). The main issue of both Communism in international affairs and preventing the basic human rights in the American congress was because of the Bricker Amendment (Donnelly, 2017, 366). The Bricker Amendment was considered to deter from what Americans viewed as “back-door Communism”(Kaufman, et al.

1988, 310).The self-proclaimed leader of the free world was acting as if human rights concerns

 

were undermined by the attack of Communism from the Soviet Russia (2017). For America, it was seemingly that to be anti-communist and anti-human rights and anti-international influence was subjected.

America’s room for anti-Communism is clear throughout the information provided.

 

America’s perspective for this kind of thinking has been demonized since the First World War. Communism/Socialism is a bad ideology and using it on a political level will never progress a country, while suspecting those Communist perspectives (W. H. D. R, 1948, 440). My perspective is not that Communism is the best approach to creating a country, my concern is when you put all proposed legislation and propositions, in a Federal senate, to a demonized Communist ideal just too legally and unanimously dismiss it.

China was more of a country trying to create good profit, although China was solely based upon a Communist margin, there were logical issues that constrained China due to a constant civil war that enveloped a country. While China was confronted with a civil war that desecrated the country, with constant civil war for power between countries, they still had to fight in the new World War, the second. I am not saying that these restrains or cultural relativism are any excuse to allow China to do whatever they wanted, but this is what Chairman Mao thought was right, in the given context, and by creating distant relationships with America greatly affected how China grew as a country (Pauly, 2012, 829). As China faced its greatest challenges as a nation, unsure whether they were to assert a Communism country, based upon many drastically different politics that enveloped China during the end of the Kuomintang Government, played a significant role in how China was to be rebuilt (Hookham, 1979, 170).

The wars that happened after the Kuomintang government was mainly because of two ideological giants that existed (Anstey, 1987, 316). The Communist Party of China was more of

 

a balance between the Russian and the America’s ideologies. With China having their own civil war of many different politics, Japanese people sat back and invaded China many times to gain power over China or at least assert a better relationship directly with the Chinese government (Civil War in China, 1924, 527). It was only then, that the constant struggle for a nation, China, became an issue for American politics.

With China under drastic disarray, due to the Kuomintang government, Peking government, Chairman Mao’s new Communism, Japanese people, and even the people uprising and using coup d’état as a way for Capitalist revolutions, China was certainly bound and constant civil war to a degree that is unimaginable (1924). America used this communist idea, their own perceived idea of Communism, that influenced countries like China and Russia’s ideal, and believed it would take over their country (Kaufman, 1988, 310). For America, Communism ideals were distraught and only could harm the country, even though China and Russia as a state have both succeeded through civil war.

In China’s defense against the use of America’s anti-Communism, I would argue Maslow’ Hierarchy of Needs would be relevant for the development of China without American influence of anti-Communism, as to why Cultural relativism is relevant to the evaluation of China’s crisis (Johns, 2017). I am not saying that China did everything right and ethically correct, but due to Nixon’s presidential system and international affairs, that was China’s only option. I would argue being able to build a country in relevance with the Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is based upon a socio-psychology that defines the satisfaction of moving up the ladder of growth in an individual. The layers of the pyramid begins with Psychological – the sleep, rest, food, water, and basic needs that are required for a human being. The next layer is security- whether an individual has the safety, security, money and

 

personal wellness are evaluated at this level of satisfaction. The layer above is love and belonging, the sense of having relationships and how they impact a person. As a country, I can expand these relationships to the state level, because it impacts how a state is going to build itself when it has these levels satisfied. China was not going to take any understanding from Americans, especially when their policy is anti-Communism and their presidents were very

anti-Communist. This is why a heavier evaluation is required to understand a nation that is completely different from America. China was still building its own ability to supply water, food, basic security for their citizens.

To assume that a certain political structure was enough to be a part of the international community is irrelevant. Assuming to disregard China as an insufficient nation is like saying that to judge another person’s ability, disregarding the context of how they are, and the situation they were in to be politically capable is not an appropriate criteria. America’s assumptions and judgements can be equivalent to saying that they can hate other nations just because of what they think they believe. Let us assume a hypothetical, looking at Freedom of Speech. Let us also assume three different people. Two people at the national airport terminal. He is with his colleague chatting about an issue at work. The third person would sit back and listen to their conversation, named Bob. The two people who are chatting ends up saying a derogatory comment, such as slavery, homophobic, racist or cynical. The only other problem would be that Bob only heard the derogatory comment and nothing else in the conversation. Yet, Bob acts on this cynical ideology and tells a Terminal Special officer about it. To be able to act on this without situation or context would make any conversation very cynical. To think that because you had this idea of a person, because of a comment he said, without context or situation of the conversation, and to act upon this and tell an official because of what Bob thinks, is what is

 

cynical. My point is not that we should not repress phobic language, but without understanding why they talk about it or the context in which they are talking about is toxic. This scenario would be similar to America making assumptions based entirely because of the fact that China has declared itself to be Communist country. China certainly endured many political opinions and was only building itself to be able to handle the growing economy and globalization.

China already resisted the capitalist theory, Japanese rule, Chinese dynasties rule, and

 

far-right wing thinkers. China has already been brought back down to the bare minimum of what they had, due to all this fighting and a coup d’état, and whether it was sure going to be successful because of a communist ideal. For China to be able to develop a country to prosper so they can be concerned with other issues would be relevant to Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. China also went through a famine for a segment of time, where even the basic levels of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs were affected (Johns, 2017). Therefore, having an understanding over a more thorough understanding of the issues that countries have had to deal with, which was cultural relativism and understanding why this was a problem. I am not saying that Cultural Relativism is an excuse for China’s actions and human rights violations, but when America begins to ignore another country based on what they think to be the conclusion of their political view and disregard them as so, which creates foundations for political and civil human rights violations.

How America created issues for China’s human rights. (Argument) In contemporary China, China was already having a war for what is now called People’s Republic of China. Despite all these attacks on China’s land to occupy, there were many distinct political changes. China was trying to change from a democratic to a communist ideological country, due to the change in government and the civil wars that were led from Japan after the First World War (Donnelly, 2007). At the same time, America was giving Turkey and Greece financial aid,

 

although they both have had civil wars that changed their respective governments (Merrill, 2006, 32). After the Tiananmen Square incident, China was evidently in killing their citizens, but America themselves stopped financial support for China’s actions (Donnelly, 2007). American initially stopped their funding, due to China’s action in the Tiananmen Square incident, but it was evident that it was also because China was communist. Greece and Turkey stayed away from a communist government rule, but America was still giving funding to China with Greece and Turkey. I am not saying that because America’s direct financial funding has affected China’s human rights, but it certainly played a role in denying China’s ability to build their country, then form proper policies for ensuring human rights. In relationship with Maslow’s Hierarchy, if a country cannot have food, water, or the basic security as a nation, they cannot build on aspects for self-actualizing and optimal qualities. Self-actualizing as in securing the demands of other nations’ through the United Nations councils, for example the human rights that grant every person in a state political, social and financial rights. Although human rights in China was a violation in 1949, the constant struggle trying to change ideologies after a civil war is evident in holding a country back from building a nation functional with human rights (2007). I am not arguing to excuse China for any of the atrocities committed, but if America was consistent with their support with nations, then there could have been better foreign relationships and negotiations to help build China’s human rights platforms. America and being one of the permanent members of the United Nations does play a big role in decision making towards China and building from its ideological and civil war (2007).

For the uses of Cultural relativism, it would change how America is looked at, as being the highest standard of morals (Kaufman et al. 1988, 309). America is using a universalism approach to critique China’s morals based upon what they believe are justified. This is why

 

America should have judged China’s actions on a more cultural relativist approach, rather than denying proper relationships based on what China says is Communism. I am not saying that cultural relativism is the greatest philosophical theory, I am arguing that China would be analyzed with a more understanding approach.

In the Asian values argument, Donnelly talks about how cultural relativism arguments are contingent and consistent to their specific cultures. He argues how the cultural relativist approach is inconsistent with their Asian values argument. He argues cultures have always changed and configured itself to what is relevant to current day societies, for example democracy and adequate governments. He argues that if Asians do something different back in the day, that Asians do not wish to change that they do now (Donnelly, 2007, 163).

My Asian values’ argument is not that cultures and human rights abuses are excused because they are of different cultures. My argument is that cultures can judge themselves, due to understanding of context and situation that culture is dealing with, rather than having other countries judge them based on universalistic approach. By having a West meets East argument of critiquing and judging each other’s leaders on the decisions they make, they make West look like the moral and cultural superior ones. Since Western countries think that Communism has affected them detrimentally. America’s universalism approach to Communism is a human rights’ hazard. My argument is more formulated on the premise that countries should be able to judge themselves, because they understand the situation, circumstance and how they are, rather than having countries use a Universalist approach to judge each other, disregarding a country’s critical problem. Because of Communism, America saw a need to contain it and ward against it. Cultural relativism is not excusing China for human rights violations, it is expanding America’s ability to critique and make judgements based on their perspectives.

 

In conclusion, I have looked at America’s perspective of anti-Communism, how

 

anti-communism was created and how taking a more cultural relativist perspective can change their analysis of China. Although these strained perspectives of anti-Communism began in the First World War, by keeping a universalistic perspective have harmed the progression to China’s human rights.

h these strained perspectives of anti-Communism began in the First World War, by keeping a universalistic perspective have harmed the progression to China’s human rights.

唐炜臻原来投资人的钱是怎么不见了,现在钱怎么才能迅速赚回来

大家开始都想不通,号称“股神”,“华人巴菲特”的唐炜臻,怎么捅出这么个大窟窿,海外华人为之震撼,全球华人都茫然。投资人都懵了,震惊,绝望,来了一个180度的转弯,从100% 的相信到100%的不信,不知道为什么会这样, 唐炜臻搞什么名堂,投资人并不能想象和理会成功需要的过程,代价和艰难。投资的关键是未来不是现在,是人不是股票,所以,我想的都是未来,给大家的也总是未来的价值,我早就把自己变成为了投资人的投资工具,其实我们的投资人投资的是我,而不是普通投资和基金,所以,损失是暂时的。其中投资人也看到,并有深刻的体会利益一致的真正涵义,作用和意义。大家应该注意唐炜臻是一种独特的市场运作,而并不欺诈,不犯罪,不害人,是极端负责任的。是为投资人甘抛头颅,奋不顾身,为投资人闯的祸,而不是欺骗投资,大家应该仔细研究,认真思考。 话得从头开始讲,我在市场十多年,深知其中之艰难痛苦和奥秘。金融市场就是赌场,只有庄家才是永久的赢家,作为散户在市场上上当受骗,被奴虞和蹂躏,挨打,亏钱是经常的事,也是正常的事,散户不投不亏,只有极个别人在市场能够赚钱,也就是1%或者0.1%的人,能够保持连续不断天天赢利,十多年的摸爬滚打和做散户在市场的位置,劣势,痛苦,如何让投资人和自己处于不败之地,保持连续稳定的回报,我想到了一个万全之计,“坐庄”,我立志要成为庄家,用无系统应对所有不赚钱的系统,以一对十, 一对一百,外面的投资人买什么,我们可以卖什么,外面的投资人卖什么,我们买什么,用1% 的风险应对每一笔交易,想尽快彻底改变自己和投资人的散户位置, 其中,市场能力,资金量和知名度确定庄家的大小,我决心要做最大的,也只有我能做最大的。 我要迅速改变投资人和自己的散户位置的捷径和方法:一是通过实战演示,边说边做,并预先承诺未来的回报,迅速募集大量资金成为真正的庄家,通过各种方式表现自己的市场能力,广泛宣传迅速走到市场的前台;一是通过虚拟庄家风险小的位置,获得连续稳定回报吸引资金成长壮大。在没有大量资金的情况下,虚拟庄家位置就是把一天的波动幅度降低十倍几十倍,只要求1%和几的波动幅度,风险和回报,大多散户也就可以做到像庄家一样,做到连续不断赢利的目的,因为自己的经验,一个像我这样的精通市场的人,坐上庄家位置,做到连续不断的回报应该不是问题,今后钱一定会有的是,所以,没有把前面的一点点个亏损全部放在心上,为保护自己的投资人,我一开始并始终坚持负责投资人的全部风险。 如何才能达到迅速转变自己的市场位置,我想到完全改变传统的,常规的做法,先说后做,帐目不公开,为了让大家确信可以通过自己过去的互惠基金投资业绩,回报在30-50% 的实践和很多成功的故事,利用每周1% 这一庄家思想和理念,更重要的是极具魅力的实战演示能力开始融资,同时,为了防止和排除投资人的干扰,账目不公开,愿意来的,敢来的就来,不敢来的,自然排除在外,极力避免普通投资人卷入,最低投资15万加元。 果然不出所料,投资人非常喜欢这一理念和我积极丰富的市场经验,特别是我的操盘能力非常神奇和具有吸引力,人见人爱,这是我长期吸引资金的一个重要因素,我是靠平时的实战演示和演示盈利的口碑,每天用投资的未来价值吸引投资。即使在没有任何交易记录和投资人看得见的资金安全措施的情况下,仍然来了很多钱,短短三年时间融资近6000万美元,也算是历史记录, 如果没有为难之处,有实实在在的交易和资金做后盾,一定是多少个亿。我依靠的是市场和市场能力,不是任何人,谁能肯定今后不再创辉煌,几年后不是6个亿呢。 当时想到有的是钱, 我开始一时高兴,在2005年市场开始好转的时候,我并没有好好把捂机会按照自己这一1% 的庄家思想和理念做 (是历史性的重大失误),又弄起了单个股票,一跳一蹦亏了一点,后来有些投资人因为盯得紧,要求看交易记录和资金在那里,要知道资金安全和要对我监督,真是当时一时的失足成了千古恨,2005 年证券会对我进行过调查,请专业律师和证券会交涉,问题解决了。因为当时有些亏损,我的1% 的计划全打乱。2006年初,为了迎来新的局面,我想了个好主意,在多伦多举办了首届华人财富峰会,峰会以后一批新的客户近来,老的也有被其中的人拉走,说一个东欧人回报更高,每月8%,还有保证和监管,资金非常安全,我感到奇怪,也无赖,客户要求很多,回报要高,我还是坚持自己的提法和做法,最后还是获得了大家的支持和信任。2006年9月一位资深投资人的加入又迎来了一个发展高峰时期,但每周1%绝对不能满足当时的需要,全球股市开始大涨,特别是中国市场非常强劲,一天涨10%, 加之,还有我原来的亏空,我又不得不急于用股票去扳本。 我找了几只股票波动很大,以为可以尽快翻身,2007年4月,我急急忙忙买了一个从20几美元,一跌就跌到4-5美元的股票叫Dendreon Corp. (DNDN) 生物医药,觉得这只股票不错(一年以后它又回到了25美元), 它波动大,4-5 块钱的时候,我开始买进,我当时专门买卖波动最大的次级贷款股票,以为抓住了机会,人都贪便宜,我也不例外,包括Countrywide Financial Corp, 股票每天波动幅度在40-50%,本来想几天或者一个月一赚几百万,扳本以后就可以金盆洗手,账目公开,按照规矩踏踏实实做,实现我的1%的理论,可是一亏就是几百万,资本少,帐目不透明扳本难。 本来我的融资和操盘是分开的,用我原来的想法和策略融资应该很顺利,先融资,资金大了再操盘就会事半功倍,但因为有前期的亏损,融资和操盘被迫连在一起,让我想起来后悔不已。2007年全球股市一片繁荣的景象,疯狂得很,我给的每周1% 并没有足够大的吸引力,个别有经验和影响力的投资人想追求更高的回报和资金的安全,也打算从我这里集体撤资到中国去追求更高的回报,我又被迫冒险了走一回,2007年中旬,也就是最后冒险,一次买了上1000个道琼指数期货合同,价值上亿美元,妄想一天赚几百万可以尽早平定局势,有机会走向既定的轨道,一亏又是几百万,加上,因为不透明和投资人要求高的回报,个别人的强烈要求不能满足开始大量撤资,当时经历了一个非常艰难的时期。为了满足市场和投资人的欲望,我的对手在背地的跟我争斗,我还被迫不断提高回报率,一年的回报到了94%才平定下来,投资人不顾三七二十一,一味追求高回报,要求高回报,不分青红皂白,就是要,投资人不管能不能,有没有,现不现实,2007年的市场高峰对我压力非常大。好才,我下定了决心不再跟市场和投资人一样疯狂,停止了冒进和贪婪,坚决改邪归正,要保护投资人和自己,从现在做起。在实践中深刻认识到投资工具的波动幅度是风险的决定因素,而不是股神与否和市场判断力。 在一定程度上市场就是赌场,赌就会输,股神也不例外,没有人监督和铁的纪律,在市场上谁都会赌。漏洞会越赌越大,压力也就变得越来越大,最后赌了一次不管输赢,坚决停止这一危险行为,下决心以后确实停止了任何赌的行为,很多投资人也已经看出来我的控制力,是一件非常好的事,有了极大的转折和进步。2007年下半年以后,完全吸取了深刻的教训,发现控制风险的办法是控制账户的波动幅度,要严格控制在每周1%的波动幅度,平均每天0.2%. 按照1%的风险与回报理论做。所以,钱再没有亏到市场上,对投资人并不十分重要,但对我是一个巨大的成就。我集中了时间和精力融资,从微观的市场操盘转移到宏观的市场运作,在不断改善管理方式,请专人搞正规化和多元化,我已经开始在美国和加拿大跟证券会注了册,同时用笔杆代替枪杆子,用语言代替资金等非常规的措施,已经大见成效。实现了我事业上的历史性的转变和重大突破。2008年开始我完全走上了轨道,市场尽管出现大的危机和海啸,我在思想观念上,操作系统上非常成功地避免了市场的风险,钱再没有亏在市场上,并自己利用独特的市场演示能力,在海啸中乘风破浪,但因为大市场的特别原因,个别投资人又把资金安全问题提到在桌面上,加上竞争对手有针对性的策反,把刚好得到的成果又侵蚀,在2008年上半年几个月被少数几个人撤资累计近千万,下半年刚开始松口气,美国冒出个马道夫,媒体天天讲,月月讲,我在美国的投资人对市场非常关注,跟市场比较密切,马道夫事发以后,他们越来越担心并开始陆续撤资,因为宣传卓有成效和大量的实战演示,本来预期可以渡过恶劣的市场难关,已经到了2009 年初,几乎已经化险为夷,巨大风险已经基本过去,在市场崩溃以后 2009年本来还可以获得大资金和大量的资金,赢得历史性的机遇,一举定乾坤,确定我梦寐以求的市场地位,但在年前一个客户的十万的提款,突然改为百万,让我措手不及,资金提取开始出现故障,演变成挤兑,其实,我已经做到相当水平与高度了,大功就要告成,但是上帝一定要考验我。 第二届北美华人财富峰会和加拿大华人春节联欢晚会的举办是社会能力和市场能力的充分表现,它们为我在关键时刻赢得一个多月时间,在两会成功举办还没有得到收获前,我的金融市场操盘现场对公众和媒体的即时演示1% 回报独门技巧,没有达到预期 (每周100%)的目标,而不是1%的失误,引爆大规模挤兑和新闻事件。就在这一危机时刻和大众面前,我无意中本能地又一次充分表现出了真正的操盘能力和我的毒龙术,但人们已经不再关心我神奇的操盘能力,即使有也要被完全彻底地否定,一味要追问什么“股神”“华人巴菲特”钱在哪里,99% 在哪里,其实大多数钱早已被投资人取走了,现实是那么的残酷,大家要的是钱,不是对自己有用的操盘能力,忽视了可能,可靠的希望和巨大潜力。大多数人以为我失败了,没戏了,其实,我浑身积聚着巨大的能量和成功的奥秘,另外,我还为投资人做了一件伟大的开创性的事业,带头还钱。 大家都知道就在北美华人财富峰会之前后一个星期,从中国,从美国赶来的客人都亲眼目睹,我用100 万一个星期天天涨,赚了100多万,8天净赚2百1万。公开表演的一个星期100万一个星期因为没有99%, 要涨100% 才能达到所谓的1%。就在事发后,在一片混乱和大家都很紧张的形势下,大家亲眼目睹5个星期我创造了平均每个星期赚100万的记录,100 万一共赚500万,是什么能力和奇迹。本来世纪性的大熊市过后,机会何等难得,就是500万美元也是何等的珍贵,后来又成遗憾,几乎成为这500万的牺牲品,被人恶意利用和伤害。 另外,我在所有投资人的关注之下,证券会下交易禁止令之前三天从35完的帐户涨到44万,三天时间回报25%。后来,禁令以后,证券会发现我帮助好几个投资人的个人帐户一个星期,一个又一个翻番。证券会禁令以后,上百位投资人专门举行会议,到会的90% 的投资人签名要求证券会为我解除禁令,让投资人能够夺回损失,是正确的。很多人想方设法要学习我的操盘技巧和能力,有人不惜代价,直到目前为止很多人都想报名参加培训班,实战指导示范班,网上实战交易,希望学习和利用我的市场能力是件好事,投资人很多,生意人很少,股神只有一个。股神不是天上掉下来的,是一个人的天性+市场的实践+时间。 我融资靠的是正确的思想观念,思维方式,市场意识和运作能力(策划),更具体的是操盘技巧 失误是前期的风险管理,理想化 大家现在都知道钱是损失在市场和生意上,已经是过去,市场能力才是未来和希望,帐是死的,人是活的。从头来,一切不得不公开透明,全凭过硬的市场能力和责任心,包袱和压力没了,我可以专心致志,全心全意为投资人赚钱还钱,是多好的机会。 投资人读完这篇文章以后,反应一定非常很大,为什么不按规矩出牌,不及时及早公布投资真相,不老老实实做人,不认认真真办事,为什么要让我们投资人受骗上当,而不知其中的奥秘,是为了投资人你们的利益和未来,没有人这么做,更没有人做这么好,其实,没有人喜欢上当受骗的感觉,更不愿意接受损失,但是投资要有收获没有不上当的,投资到处是陷阱,特别是市场,只有我是善意的,风险和利益跟投资人是一致的,我是爱护,也是在极力保护投资人的。 毛泽东同志说“要奋斗就会有牺牲”, 投资一定有风险,我们的风险相比之下,是小的,暂时的,又算得了什么呢?我已经极力为投资人避免了风险,做得已经比市场好得多,只是在初级,中级阶段,没有完成整个过程。 如果不是历史问题,三年融资的就不是6 千万,而是6个亿,60个亿。本来几千万的损失很容易解决的,我心里有数,有每周1%回报的技巧和广泛的宣传,几个亿几十个亿也不是问题,市场很大。现在遗留问题解决了,几年以后没有什么能挡住我们前进的道路,为什么不是多少个亿呢? 要成就一番事业和一件大事,是需要付出的,我们的前途是光明的,道路是曲折的,作为带路人,领头羊,领袖人物,我自己的风险自然是最大的,因为市场,大家以经看到我受的损失,伤害最深。只有我是处处为投资人着想,为投资人我已经非常用心并冒着极大的风险,一步一步艰难走来到了今天已经达到了一定的程度和高度,人们只看到现状和暂时的结果,没有从出发点,过程和未来,以及最终的目的全面看问题,没有从总体上看问题,没有结合市场看问题,更不是从道理上看问题。 …大家开始都想不通,号称“股神”,“华人巴菲特”的唐炜臻,怎么捅出这么个大窟窿,海外华人为之震撼,全球华人都茫然。投资人都懵了,震惊,绝望,来了一个180度的转弯,从100% 的相信到100%的不信,不知道为什么会这样, 唐炜臻搞什么名堂,投资人并不能想象和理会成功需要的过程,代价和艰难。投资的关键是未来不是现在,是人不是股票,所以,我想的都是未来,给大家的也总是未来的价值,我早就把自己变成为了投资人的投资工具,其实我们的投资人投资的是我,而不是普通投资和基金,所以,损失是暂时的。其中投资人也看到,并有深刻的体会利益一致的真正涵义,作用和意义。大家应该注意唐炜臻是一种独特的市场运作,而并不欺诈,不犯罪,不害人,是极端负责任的。是为投资人甘抛头颅,奋不顾身,为投资人闯的祸,而不是欺骗投资,大家应该仔细研究,认真思考。 话得从头开始讲,我在市场十多年,深知其中之艰难痛苦和奥秘。金融市场就是赌场,只有庄家才是永久的赢家,作为散户在市场上上当受骗,被奴虞和蹂躏,挨打,亏钱是经常的事,也是正常的事,散户不投不亏,只有极个别人在市场能够赚钱,也就是1%或者0.1%的人,能够保持连续不断天天赢利,十多年的摸爬滚打和做散户在市场的位置,劣势,痛苦,如何让投资人和自己处于不败之地,保持连续稳定的回报,我想到了一个万全之计,“坐庄”,我立志要成为庄家,用无系统应对所有不赚钱的系统,以一对十, 一对一百,外面的投资人买什么,我们可以卖什么,外面的投资人卖什么,我们买什么,用1% 的风险应对每一笔交易,想尽快彻底改变自己和投资人的散户位置, 其中,市场能力,资金量和知名度确定庄家的大小,我决心要做最大的,也只有我能做最大的。 我要迅速改变投资人和自己的散户位置的捷径和方法:一是通过实战演示,边说边做,并预先承诺未来的回报,迅速募集大量资金成为真正的庄家,通过各种方式表现自己的市场能力,广泛宣传迅速走到市场的前台;一是通过虚拟庄家风险小的位置,获得连续稳定回报吸引资金成长壮大。在没有大量资金的情况下,虚拟庄家位置就是把一天的波动幅度降低十倍几十倍,只要求1%和几的波动幅度,风险和回报,大多散户也就可以做到像庄家一样,做到连续不断赢利的目的,因为自己的经验,一个像我这样的精通市场的人,坐上庄家位置,做到连续不断的回报应该不是问题,今后钱一定会有的是,所以,没有把前面的一点点个亏损全部放在心上,为保护自己的投资人,我一开始并始终坚持负责投资人的全部风险。 如何才能达到迅速转变自己的市场位置,我想到完全改变传统的,常规的做法,先说后做,帐目不公开,为了让大家确信可以通过自己过去的互惠基金投资业绩,回报在30-50% 的实践和很多成功的故事,利用每周1% 这一庄家思想和理念,更重要的是极具魅力的实战演示能力开始融资,同时,为了防止和排除投资人的干扰,账目不公开,愿意来的,敢来的就来,不敢来的,自然排除在外,极力避免普通投资人卷入,最低投资15万加元。 果然不出所料,投资人非常喜欢这一理念和我积极丰富的市场经验,特别是我的操盘能力非常神奇和具有吸引力,人见人爱,这是我长期吸引资金的一个重要因素,我是靠平时的实战演示和演示盈利的口碑,每天用投资的未来价值吸引投资。即使在没有任何交易记录和投资人看得见的资金安全措施的情况下,仍然来了很多钱,短短三年时间融资近6000万美元,也算是历史记录, 如果没有为难之处,有实实在在的交易和资金做后盾,一定是多少个亿。我依靠的是市场和市场能力,不是任何人,谁能肯定今后不再创辉煌,几年后不是6个亿呢。 当时想到有的是钱, 我开始一时高兴,在2005年市场开始好转的时候,我并没有好好把捂机会按照自己这一1% 的庄家思想和理念做 (是历史性的重大失误),又弄起了单个股票,一跳一蹦亏了一点,后来有些投资人因为盯得紧,要求看交易记录和资金在那里,要知道资金安全和要对我监督,真是当时一时的失足成了千古恨,2005 年证券会对我进行过调查,请专业律师和证券会交涉,问题解决了。因为当时有些亏损,我的1% 的计划全打乱。2006年初,为了迎来新的局面,我想了个好主意,在多伦多举办了首届华人财富峰会,峰会以后一批新的客户近来,老的也有被其中的人拉走,说一个东欧人回报更高,每月8%,还有保证和监管,资金非常安全,我感到奇怪,也无赖,客户要求很多,回报要高,我还是坚持自己的提法和做法,最后还是获得了大家的支持和信任。2006年9月一位资深投资人的加入又迎来了一个发展高峰时期,但每周1%绝对不能满足当时的需要,全球股市开始大涨,特别是中国市场非常强劲,一天涨10%, 加之,还有我原来的亏空,我又不得不急于用股票去扳本。 我找了几只股票波动很大,以为可以尽快翻身,2007年4月,我急急忙忙买了一个从20几美元,一跌就跌到4-5美元的股票叫Dendreon Corp. (DNDN) 生物医药,觉得这只股票不错(一年以后它又回到了25美元), 它波动大,4-5 块钱的时候,我开始买进,我当时专门买卖波动最大的次级贷款股票,以为抓住了机会,人都贪便宜,我也不例外,包括Countrywide Financial Corp, 股票每天波动幅度在40-50%,本来想几天或者一个月一赚几百万,扳本以后就可以金盆洗手,账目公开,按照规矩踏踏实实做,实现我的1%的理论,可是一亏就是几百万,资本少,帐目不透明扳本难。 本来我的融资和操盘是分开的,用我原来的想法和策略融资应该很顺利,先融资,资金大了再操盘就会事半功倍,但因为有前期的亏损,融资和操盘被迫连在一起,让我想起来后悔不已。2007年全球股市一片繁荣的景象,疯狂得很,我给的每周1% 并没有足够大的吸引力,个别有经验和影响力的投资人想追求更高的回报和资金的安全,也打算从我这里集体撤资到中国去追求更高的回报,我又被迫冒险了走一回,2007年中旬,也就是最后冒险,一次买了上1000个道琼指数期货合同,价值上亿美元,妄想一天赚几百万可以尽早平定局势,有机会走向既定的轨道,一亏又是几百万,加上,因为不透明和投资人要求高的回报,个别人的强烈要求不能满足开始大量撤资,当时经历了一个非常艰难的时期。为了满足市场和投资人的欲望,我的对手在背地的跟我争斗,我还被迫不断提高回报率,一年的回报到了94%才平定下来,投资人不顾三七二十一,一味追求高回报,要求高回报,不分青红皂白,就是要,投资人不管能不能,有没有,现不现实,2007年的市场高峰对我压力非常大。好才,我下定了决心不再跟市场和投资人一样疯狂,停止了冒进和贪婪,坚决改邪归正,要保护投资人和自己,从现在做起。在实践中深刻认识到投资工具的波动幅度是风险的决定因素,而不是股神与否和市场判断力。 在一定程度上市场就是赌场,赌就会输,股神也不例外,没有人监督和铁的纪律,在市场上谁都会赌。漏洞会越赌越大,压力也就变得越来越大,最后赌了一次不管输赢,坚决停止这一危险行为,下决心以后确实停止了任何赌的行为,很多投资人也已经看出来我的控制力,是一件非常好的事,有了极大的转折和进步。2007年下半年以后,完全吸取了深刻的教训,发现控制风险的办法是控制账户的波动幅度,要严格控制在每周1%的波动幅度,平均每天0.2%. 按照1%的风险与回报理论做。所以,钱再没有亏到市场上,对投资人并不十分重要,但对我是一个巨大的成就。我集中了时间和精力融资,从微观的市场操盘转移到宏观的市场运作,在不断改善管理方式,请专人搞正规化和多元化,我已经开始在美国和加拿大跟证券会注了册,同时用笔杆代替枪杆子,用语言代替资金等非常规的措施,已经大见成效。实现了我事业上的历史性的转变和重大突破。2008年开始我完全走上了轨道,市场尽管出现大的危机和海啸,我在思想观念上,操作系统上非常成功地避免了市场的风险,钱再没有亏在市场上,并自己利用独特的市场演示能力,在海啸中乘风破浪,但因为大市场的特别原因,个别投资人又把资金安全问题提到在桌面上,加上竞争对手有针对性的策反,把刚好得到的成果又侵蚀,在2008年上半年几个月被少数几个人撤资累计近千万,下半年刚开始松口气,美国冒出个马道夫,媒体天天讲,月月讲,我在美国的投资人对市场非常关注,跟市场比较密切,马道夫事发以后,他们越来越担心并开始陆续撤资,因为宣传卓有成效和大量的实战演示,本来预期可以渡过恶劣的市场难关,已经到了2009 年初,几乎已经化险为夷,巨大风险已经基本过去,在市场崩溃以后 2009年本来还可以获得大资金和大量的资金,赢得历史性的机遇,一举定乾坤,确定我梦寐以求的市场地位,但在年前一个客户的十万的提款,突然改为百万,让我措手不及,资金提取开始出现故障,演变成挤兑,其实,我已经做到相当水平与高度了,大功就要告成,但是上帝一定要考验我。 第二届北美华人财富峰会和加拿大华人春节联欢晚会的举办是社会能力和市场能力的充分表现,它们为我在关键时刻赢得一个多月时间,在两会成功举办还没有得到收获前,我的金融市场操盘现场对公众和媒体的即时演示1% 回报独门技巧,没有达到预期 (每周100%)的目标,而不是1%的失误,引爆大规模挤兑和新闻事件。就在这一危机时刻和大众面前,我无意中本能地又一次充分表现出了真正的操盘能力和我的毒龙术,但人们已经不再关心我神奇的操盘能力,即使有也要被完全彻底地否定,一味要追问什么“股神”“华人巴菲特”钱在哪里,99% 在哪里,其实大多数钱早已被投资人取走了,现实是那么的残酷,大家要的是钱,不是对自己有用的操盘能力,忽视了可能,可靠的希望和巨大潜力。大多数人以为我失败了,没戏了,其实,我浑身积聚着巨大的能量和成功的奥秘,另外,我还为投资人做了一件伟大的开创性的事业,带头还钱。 大家都知道就在北美华人财富峰会之前后一个星期,从中国,从美国赶来的客人都亲眼目睹,我用100 万一个星期天天涨,赚了100多万,8天净赚2百1万。公开表演的一个星期100万一个星期因为没有99%, 要涨100% 才能达到所谓的1%。就在事发后,在一片混乱和大家都很紧张的形势下,大家亲眼目睹5个星期我创造了平均每个星期赚100万的记录,100 万一共赚500万,是什么能力和奇迹。本来世纪性的大熊市过后,机会何等难得,就是500万美元也是何等的珍贵,后来又成遗憾,几乎成为这500万的牺牲品,被人恶意利用和伤害。 另外,我在所有投资人的关注之下,证券会下交易禁止令之前三天从35完的帐户涨到44万,三天时间回报25%。后来,禁令以后,证券会发现我帮助好几个投资人的个人帐户一个星期,一个又一个翻番。证券会禁令以后,上百位投资人专门举行会议,到会的90% 的投资人签名要求证券会为我解除禁令,让投资人能够夺回损失,是正确的。很多人想方设法要学习我的操盘技巧和能力,有人不惜代价,直到目前为止很多人都想报名参加培训班,实战指导示范班,网上实战交易,希望学习和利用我的市场能力是件好事,投资人很多,生意人很少,股神只有一个。股神不是天上掉下来的,是一个人的天性+市场的实践+时间。 我融资靠的是正确的思想观念,思维方式,市场意识和运作能力(策划),更具体的是操盘技巧 失误是前期的风险管理,理想化 大家现在都知道钱是损失在市场和生意上,已经是过去,市场能力才是未来和希望,帐是死的,人是活的。从头来,一切不得不公开透明,全凭过硬的市场能力和责任心,包袱和压力没了,我可以专心致志,全心全意为投资人赚钱还钱,是多好的机会。 投资人读完这篇文章以后,反应一定非常很大,为什么不按规矩出牌,不及时及早公布投资真相,不老老实实做人,不认认真真办事,为什么要让我们投资人受骗上当,而不知其中的奥秘,是为了投资人你们的利益和未来,没有人这么做,更没有人做这么好,其实,没有人喜欢上当受骗的感觉,更不愿意接受损失,但是投资要有收获没有不上当的,投资到处是陷阱,特别是市场,只有我是善意的,风险和利益跟投资人是一致的,我是爱护,也是在极力保护投资人的。 毛泽东同志说“要奋斗就会有牺牲”, 投资一定有风险,我们的风险相比之下,是小的,暂时的,又算得了什么呢?我已经极力为投资人避免了风险,做得已经比市场好得多,只是在初级,中级阶段,没有完成整个过程。 如果不是历史问题,三年融资的就不是6 千万,而是6个亿,60个亿。本来几千万的损失很容易解决的,我心里有数,有每周1%回报的技巧和广泛的宣传,几个亿几十个亿也不是问题,市场很大。现在遗留问题解决了,几年以后没有什么能挡住我们前进的道路,为什么不是多少个亿呢? 要成就一番事业和一件大事,是需要付出的,我们的前途是光明的,道路是曲折的,作为带路人,领头羊,领袖人物,我自己的风险自然是最大的,因为市场,大家以经看到我受的损失,伤害最深。只有我是处处为投资人着想,为投资人我已经非常用心并冒着极大的风险,一步一步艰难走来到了今天已经达到了一定的程度和高度,人们只看到现状和暂时的结果,没有从出发点,过程和未来,以及最终的目的全面看问题,没有从总体上看问题,没有结合市场看问题,更不是从道理上看问题。 …大家开始都想不通,号称“股神”,“华人巴菲特”的唐炜臻,怎么捅出这么个大窟窿,海外华人为之震撼,全球华人都茫然。投资人都懵了,震惊,绝望,来了一个180度的转弯,从100% 的相信到100%的不信,不知道为什么会这样, 唐炜臻搞什么名堂,投资人并不能想象和理会成功需要的过程,代价和艰难。投资的关键是未来不是现在,是人不是股票,所以,我想的都是未来,给大家的也总是未来的价值,我早就把自己变成为了投资人的投资工具,其实我们的投资人投资的是我,而不是普通投资和基金,所以,损失是暂时的。其中投资人也看到,并有深刻的体会利益一致的真正涵义,作用和意义。大家应该注意唐炜臻是一种独特的市场运作,而并不欺诈,不犯罪,不害人,是极端负责任的。是为投资人甘抛头颅,奋不顾身,为投资人闯的祸,而不是欺骗投资,大家应该仔细研究,认真思考。 话得从头开始讲,我在市场十多年,深知其中之艰难痛苦和奥秘。金融市场就是赌场,只有庄家才是永久的赢家,作为散户在市场上上当受骗,被奴虞和蹂躏,挨打,亏钱是经常的事,也是正常的事,散户不投不亏,只有极个别人在市场能够赚钱,也就是1%或者0.1%的人,能够保持连续不断天天赢利,十多年的摸爬滚打和做散户在市场的位置,劣势,痛苦,如何让投资人和自己处于不败之地,保持连续稳定的回报,我想到了一个万全之计,“坐庄”,我立志要成为庄家,用无系统应对所有不赚钱的系统,以一对十, 一对一百,外面的投资人买什么,我们可以卖什么,外面的投资人卖什么,我们买什么,用1% 的风险应对每一笔交易,想尽快彻底改变自己和投资人的散户位置, 其中,市场能力,资金量和知名度确定庄家的大小,我决心要做最大的,也只有我能做最大的。 我要迅速改变投资人和自己的散户位置的捷径和方法:一是通过实战演示,边说边做,并预先承诺未来的回报,迅速募集大量资金成为真正的庄家,通过各种方式表现自己的市场能力,广泛宣传迅速走到市场的前台;一是通过虚拟庄家风险小的位置,获得连续稳定回报吸引资金成长壮大。在没有大量资金的情况下,虚拟庄家位置就是把一天的波动幅度降低十倍几十倍,只要求1%和几的波动幅度,风险和回报,大多散户也就可以做到像庄家一样,做到连续不断赢利的目的,因为自己的经验,一个像我这样的精通市场的人,坐上庄家位置,做到连续不断的回报应该不是问题,今后钱一定会有的是,所以,没有把前面的一点点个亏损全部放在心上,为保护自己的投资人,我一开始并始终坚持负责投资人的全部风险。 如何才能达到迅速转变自己的市场位置,我想到完全改变传统的,常规的做法,先说后做,帐目不公开,为了让大家确信可以通过自己过去的互惠基金投资业绩,回报在30-50% 的实践和很多成功的故事,利用每周1% 这一庄家思想和理念,更重要的是极具魅力的实战演示能力开始融资,同时,为了防止和排除投资人的干扰,账目不公开,愿意来的,敢来的就来,不敢来的,自然排除在外,极力避免普通投资人卷入,最低投资15万加元。 果然不出所料,投资人非常喜欢这一理念和我积极丰富的市场经验,特别是我的操盘能力非常神奇和具有吸引力,人见人爱,这是我长期吸引资金的一个重要因素,我是靠平时的实战演示和演示盈利的口碑,每天用投资的未来价值吸引投资。即使在没有任何交易记录和投资人看得见的资金安全措施的情况下,仍然来了很多钱,短短三年时间融资近6000万美元,也算是历史记录, 如果没有为难之处,有实实在在的交易和资金做后盾,一定是多少个亿。我依靠的是市场和市场能力,不是任何人,谁能肯定今后不再创辉煌,几年后不是6个亿呢。 当时想到有的是钱, 我开始一时高兴,在2005年市场开始好转的时候,我并没有好好把捂机会按照自己这一1% 的庄家思想和理念做 (是历史性的重大失误),又弄起了单个股票,一跳一蹦亏了一点,后来有些投资人因为盯得紧,要求看交易记录和资金在那里,要知道资金安全和要对我监督,真是当时一时的失足成了千古恨,2005 年证券会对我进行过调查,请专业律师和证券会交涉,问题解决了。因为当时有些亏损,我的1% 的计划全打乱。2006年初,为了迎来新的局面,我想了个好主意,在多伦多举办了首届华人财富峰会,峰会以后一批新的客户近来,老的也有被其中的人拉走,说一个东欧人回报更高,每月8%,还有保证和监管,资金非常安全,我感到奇怪,也无赖,客户要求很多,回报要高,我还是坚持自己的提法和做法,最后还是获得了大家的支持和信任。2006年9月一位资深投资人的加入又迎来了一个发展高峰时期,但每周1%绝对不能满足当时的需要,全球股市开始大涨,特别是中国市场非常强劲,一天涨10%, 加之,还有我原来的亏空,我又不得不急于用股票去扳本。 我找了几只股票波动很大,以为可以尽快翻身,2007年4月,我急急忙忙买了一个从20几美元,一跌就跌到4-5美元的股票叫Dendreon Corp. (DNDN) 生物医药,觉得这只股票不错(一年以后它又回到了25美元), 它波动大,4-5 块钱的时候,我开始买进,我当时专门买卖波动最大的次级贷款股票,以为抓住了机会,人都贪便宜,我也不例外,包括Countrywide Financial Corp, 股票每天波动幅度在40-50%,本来想几天或者一个月一赚几百万,扳本以后就可以金盆洗手,账目公开,按照规矩踏踏实实做,实现我的1%的理论,可是一亏就是几百万,资本少,帐目不透明扳本难。 本来我的融资和操盘是分开的,用我原来的想法和策略融资应该很顺利,先融资,资金大了再操盘就会事半功倍,但因为有前期的亏损,融资和操盘被迫连在一起,让我想起来后悔不已。2007年全球股市一片繁荣的景象,疯狂得很,我给的每周1% 并没有足够大的吸引力,个别有经验和影响力的投资人想追求更高的回报和资金的安全,也打算从我这里集体撤资到中国去追求更高的回报,我又被迫冒险了走一回,2007年中旬,也就是最后冒险,一次买了上1000个道琼指数期货合同,价值上亿美元,妄想一天赚几百万可以尽早平定局势,有机会走向既定的轨道,一亏又是几百万,加上,因为不透明和投资人要求高的回报,个别人的强烈要求不能满足开始大量撤资,当时经历了一个非常艰难的时期。为了满足市场和投资人的欲望,我的对手在背地的跟我争斗,我还被迫不断提高回报率,一年的回报到了94%才平定下来,投资人不顾三七二十一,一味追求高回报,要求高回报,不分青红皂白,就是要,投资人不管能不能,有没有,现不现实,2007年的市场高峰对我压力非常大。好才,我下定了决心不再跟市场和投资人一样疯狂,停止了冒进和贪婪,坚决改邪归正,要保护投资人和自己,从现在做起。在实践中深刻认识到投资工具的波动幅度是风险的决定因素,而不是股神与否和市场判断力。 在一定程度上市场就是赌场,赌就会输,股神也不例外,没有人监督和铁的纪律,在市场上谁都会赌。漏洞会越赌越大,压力也就变得越来越大,最后赌了一次不管输赢,坚决停止这一危险行为,下决心以后确实停止了任何赌的行为,很多投资人也已经看出来我的控制力,是一件非常好的事,有了极大的转折和进步。2007年下半年以后,完全吸取了深刻的教训,发现控制风险的办法是控制账户的波动幅度,要严格控制在每周1%的波动幅度,平均每天0.2%. 按照1%的风险与回报理论做。所以,钱再没有亏到市场上,对投资人并不十分重要,但对我是一个巨大的成就。我集中了时间和精力融资,从微观的市场操盘转移到宏观的市场运作,在不断改善管理方式,请专人搞正规化和多元化,我已经开始在美国和加拿大跟证券会注了册,同时用笔杆代替枪杆子,用语言代替资金等非常规的措施,已经大见成效。实现了我事业上的历史性的转变和重大突破。2008年开始我完全走上了轨道,市场尽管出现大的危机和海啸,我在思想观念上,操作系统上非常成功地避免了市场的风险,钱再没有亏在市场上,并自己利用独特的市场演示能力,在海啸中乘风破浪,但因为大市场的特别原因,个别投资人又把资金安全问题提到在桌面上,加上竞争对手有针对性的策反,把刚好得到的成果又侵蚀,在2008年上半年几个月被少数几个人撤资累计近千万,下半年刚开始松口气,美国冒出个马道夫,媒体天天讲,月月讲,我在美国的投资人对市场非常关注,跟市场比较密切,马道夫事发以后,他们越来越担心并开始陆续撤资,因为宣传卓有成效和大量的实战演示,本来预期可以渡过恶劣的市场难关,已经到了2009 年初,几乎已经化险为夷,巨大风险已经基本过去,在市场崩溃以后 2009年本来还可以获得大资金和大量的资金,赢得历史性的机遇,一举定乾坤,确定我梦寐以求的市场地位,但在年前一个客户的十万的提款,突然改为百万,让我措手不及,资金提取开始出现故障,演变成挤兑,其实,我已经做到相当水平与高度了,大功就要告成,但是上帝一定要考验我。 第二届北美华人财富峰会和加拿大华人春节联欢晚会的举办是社会能力和市场能力的充分表现,它们为我在关键时刻赢得一个多月时间,在两会成功举办还没有得到收获前,我的金融市场操盘现场对公众和媒体的即时演示1% 回报独门技巧,没有达到预期 (每周100%)的目标,而不是1%的失误,引爆大规模挤兑和新闻事件。就在这一危机时刻和大众面前,我无意中本能地又一次充分表现出了真正的操盘能力和我的毒龙术,但人们已经不再关心我神奇的操盘能力,即使有也要被完全彻底地否定,一味要追问什么“股神”“华人巴菲特”钱在哪里,99% 在哪里,其实大多数钱早已被投资人取走了,现实是那么的残酷,大家要的是钱,不是对自己有用的操盘能力,忽视了可能,可靠的希望和巨大潜力。大多数人以为我失败了,没戏了,其实,我浑身积聚着巨大的能量和成功的奥秘,另外,我还为投资人做了一件伟大的开创性的事业,带头还钱。 大家都知道就在北美华人财富峰会之前后一个星期,从中国,从美国赶来的客人都亲眼目睹,我用100 万一个星期天天涨,赚了100多万,8天净赚2百1万。公开表演的一个星期100万一个星期因为没有99%, 要涨100% 才能达到所谓的1%。就在事发后,在一片混乱和大家都很紧张的形势下,大家亲眼目睹5个星期我创造了平均每个星期赚100万的记录,100 万一共赚500万,是什么能力和奇迹。本来世纪性的大熊市过后,机会何等难得,就是500万美元也是何等的珍贵,后来又成遗憾,几乎成为这500万的牺牲品,被人恶意利用和伤害。 另外,我在所有投资人的关注之下,证券会下交易禁止令之前三天从35完的帐户涨到44万,三天时间回报25%。后来,禁令以后,证券会发现我帮助好几个投资人的个人帐户一个星期,一个又一个翻番。证券会禁令以后,上百位投资人专门举行会议,到会的90% 的投资人签名要求证券会为我解除禁令,让投资人能够夺回损失,是正确的。很多人想方设法要学习我的操盘技巧和能力,有人不惜代价,直到目前为止很多人都想报名参加培训班,实战指导示范班,网上实战交易,希望学习和利用我的市场能力是件好事,投资人很多,生意人很少,股神只有一个。股神不是天上掉下来的,是一个人的天性+市场的实践+时间。 我融资靠的是正确的思想观念,思维方式,市场意识和运作能力(策划),更具体的是操盘技巧 失误是前期的风险管理,理想化 大家现在都知道钱是损失在市场和生意上,已经是过去,市场能力才是未来和希望,帐是死的,人是活的。从头来,一切不得不公开透明,全凭过硬的市场能力和责任心,包袱和压力没了,我可以专心致志,全心全意为投资人赚钱还钱,是多好的机会。 投资人读完这篇文章以后,反应一定非常很大,为什么不按规矩出牌,不及时及早公布投资真相,不老老实实做人,不认认真真办事,为什么要让我们投资人受骗上当,而不知其中的奥秘,是为了投资人你们的利益和未来,没有人这么做,更没有人做这么好,其实,没有人喜欢上当受骗的感觉,更不愿意接受损失,但是投资要有收获没有不上当的,投资到处是陷阱,特别是市场,只有我是善意的,风险和利益跟投资人是一致的,我是爱护,也是在极力保护投资人的。 毛泽东同志说“要奋斗就会有牺牲”, 投资一定有风险,我们的风险相比之下,是小的,暂时的,又算得了什么呢?我已经极力为投资人避免了风险,做得已经比市场好得多,只是在初级,中级阶段,没有完成整个过程。 如果不是历史问题,三年融资的就不是6 千万,而是6个亿,60个亿。本来几千万的损失很容易解决的,我心里有数,有每周1%回报的技巧和广泛的宣传,几个亿几十个亿也不是问题,市场很大。现在遗留问题解决了,几年以后没有什么能挡住我们前进的道路,为什么不是多少个亿呢? 要成就一番事业和一件大事,是需要付出的,我们的前途是光明的,道路是曲折的,作为带路人,领头羊,领袖人物,我自己的风险自然是最大的,因为市场,大家以经看到我受的损失,伤害最深。只有我是处处为投资人着想,为投资人我已经非常用心并冒着极大的风险,一步一步艰难走来到了今天已经达到了一定的程度和高度,人们只看到现状和暂时的结果,没有从出发点,过程和未来,以及最终的目的全面看问题,没有从总体上看问题,没有结合市场看问题,更不是从道理上看问题。 …大家开始都想不通,号称“股神”,“华人巴菲特”的唐炜臻,怎么捅出这么个大窟窿,海外华人为之震撼,全球华人都茫然。投资人都懵了,震惊,绝望,来了一个180度的转弯,从100% 的相信到100%的不信,不知道为什么会这样, 唐炜臻搞什么名堂,投资人并不能想象和理会成功需要的过程,代价和艰难。投资的关键是未来不是现在,是人不是股票,所以,我想的都是未来,给大家的也总是未来的价值,我早就把自己变成为了投资人的投资工具,其实我们的投资人投资的是我,而不是普通投资和基金,所以,损失是暂时的。其中投资人也看到,并有深刻的体会利益一致的真正涵义,作用和意义。大家应该注意唐炜臻是一种独特的市场运作,而并不欺诈,不犯罪,不害人,是极端负责任的。是为投资人甘抛头颅,奋不顾身,为投资人闯的祸,而不是欺骗投资,大家应该仔细研究,认真思考。 话得从头开始讲,我在市场十多年,深知其中之艰难痛苦和奥秘。金融市场就是赌场,只有庄家才是永久的赢家,作为散户在市场上上当受骗,被奴虞和蹂躏,挨打,亏钱是经常的事,也是正常的事,散户不投不亏,只有极个别人在市场能够赚钱,也就是1%或者0.1%的人,能够保持连续不断天天赢利,十多年的摸爬滚打和做散户在市场的位置,劣势,痛苦,如何让投资人和自己处于不败之地,保持连续稳定的回报,我想到了一个万全之计,“坐庄”,我立志要成为庄家,用无系统应对所有不赚钱的系统,以一对十, 一对一百,外面的投资人买什么,我们可以卖什么,外面的投资人卖什么,我们买什么,用1% 的风险应对每一笔交易,想尽快彻底改变自己和投资人的散户位置, 其中,市场能力,资金量和知名度确定庄家的大小,我决心要做最大的,也只有我能做最大的。 我要迅速改变投资人和自己的散户位置的捷径和方法:一是通过实战演示,边说边做,并预先承诺未来的回报,迅速募集大量资金成为真正的庄家,通过各种方式表现自己的市场能力,广泛宣传迅速走到市场的前台;一是通过虚拟庄家风险小的位置,获得连续稳定回报吸引资金成长壮大。在没有大量资金的情况下,虚拟庄家位置就是把一天的波动幅度降低十倍几十倍,只要求1%和几的波动幅度,风险和回报,大多散户也就可以做到像庄家一样,做到连续不断赢利的目的,因为自己的经验,一个像我这样的精通市场的人,坐上庄家位置,做到连续不断的回报应该不是问题,今后钱一定会有的是,所以,没有把前面的一点点个亏损全部放在心上,为保护自己的投资人,我一开始并始终坚持负责投资人的全部风险。 如何才能达到迅速转变自己的市场位置,我想到完全改变传统的,常规的做法,先说后做,帐目不公开,为了让大家确信可以通过自己过去的互惠基金投资业绩,回报在30-50% 的实践和很多成功的故事,利用每周1% 这一庄家思想和理念,更重要的是极具魅力的实战演示能力开始融资,同时,为了防止和排除投资人的干扰,账目不公开,愿意来的,敢来的就来,不敢来的,自然排除在外,极力避免普通投资人卷入,最低投资15万加元。 果然不出所料,投资人非常喜欢这一理念和我积极丰富的市场经验,特别是我的操盘能力非常神奇和具有吸引力,人见人爱,这是我长期吸引资金的一个重要因素,我是靠平时的实战演示和演示盈利的口碑,每天用投资的未来价值吸引投资。即使在没有任何交易记录和投资人看得见的资金安全措施的情况下,仍然来了很多钱,短短三年时间融资近6000万美元,也算是历史记录, 如果没有为难之处,有实实在在的交易和资金做后盾,一定是多少个亿。我依靠的是市场和市场能力,不是任何人,谁能肯定今后不再创辉煌,几年后不是6个亿呢。 当时想到有的是钱, 我开始一时高兴,在2005年市场开始好转的时候,我并没有好好把捂机会按照自己这一1% 的庄家思想和理念做 (是历史性的重大失误),又弄起了单个股票,一跳一蹦亏了一点,后来有些投资人因为盯得紧,要求看交易记录和资金在那里,要知道资金安全和要对我监督,真是当时一时的失足成了千古恨,2005 年证券会对我进行过调查,请专业律师和证券会交涉,问题解决了。因为当时有些亏损,我的1% 的计划全打乱。2006年初,为了迎来新的局面,我想了个好主意,在多伦多举办了首届华人财富峰会,峰会以后一批新的客户近来,老的也有被其中的人拉走,说一个东欧人回报更高,每月8%,还有保证和监管,资金非常安全,我感到奇怪,也无赖,客户要求很多,回报要高,我还是坚持自己的提法和做法,最后还是获得了大家的支持和信任。2006年9月一位资深投资人的加入又迎来了一个发展高峰时期,但每周1%绝对不能满足当时的需要,全球股市开始大涨,特别是中国市场非常强劲,一天涨10%, 加之,还有我原来的亏空,我又不得不急于用股票去扳本。 我找了几只股票波动很大,以为可以尽快翻身,2007年4月,我急急忙忙买了一个从20几美元,一跌就跌到4-5美元的股票叫Dendreon Corp. (DNDN) 生物医药,觉得这只股票不错(一年以后它又回到了25美元), 它波动大,4-5 块钱的时候,我开始买进,我当时专门买卖波动最大的次级贷款股票,以为抓住了机会,人都贪便宜,我也不例外,包括Countrywide Financial Corp, 股票每天波动幅度在40-50%,本来想几天或者一个月一赚几百万,扳本以后就可以金盆洗手,账目公开,按照规矩踏踏实实做,实现我的1%的理论,可是一亏就是几百万,资本少,帐目不透明扳本难。 本来我的融资和操盘是分开的,用我原来的想法和策略融资应该很顺利,先融资,资金大了再操盘就会事半功倍,但因为有前期的亏损,融资和操盘被迫连在一起,让我想起来后悔不已。2007年全球股市一片繁荣的景象,疯狂得很,我给的每周1% 并没有足够大的吸引力,个别有经验和影响力的投资人想追求更高的回报和资金的安全,也打算从我这里集体撤资到中国去追求更高的回报,我又被迫冒险了走一回,2007年中旬,也就是最后冒险,一次买了上1000个道琼指数期货合同,价值上亿美元,妄想一天赚几百万可以尽早平定局势,有机会走向既定的轨道,一亏又是几百万,加上,因为不透明和投资人要求高的回报,个别人的强烈要求不能满足开始大量撤资,当时经历了一个非常艰难的时期。为了满足市场和投资人的欲望,我的对手在背地的跟我争斗,我还被迫不断提高回报率,一年的回报到了94%才平定下来,投资人不顾三七二十一,一味追求高回报,要求高回报,不分青红皂白,就是要,投资人不管能不能,有没有,现不现实,2007年的市场高峰对我压力非常大。好才,我下定了决心不再跟市场和投资人一样疯狂,停止了冒进和贪婪,坚决改邪归正,要保护投资人和自己,从现在做起。在实践中深刻认识到投资工具的波动幅度是风险的决定因素,而不是股神与否和市场判断力。 在一定程度上市场就是赌场,赌就会输,股神也不例外,没有人监督和铁的纪律,在市场上谁都会赌。漏洞会越赌越大,压力也就变得越来越大,最后赌了一次不管输赢,坚决停止这一危险行为,下决心以后确实停止了任何赌的行为,很多投资人也已经看出来我的控制力,是一件非常好的事,有了极大的转折和进步。2007年下半年以后,完全吸取了深刻的教训,发现控制风险的办法是控制账户的波动幅度,要严格控制在每周1%的波动幅度,平均每天0.2%. 按照1%的风险与回报理论做。所以,钱再没有亏到市场上,对投资人并不十分重要,但对我是一个巨大的成就。我集中了时间和精力融资,从微观的市场操盘转移到宏观的市场运作,在不断改善管理方式,请专人搞正规化和多元化,我已经开始在美国和加拿大跟证券会注了册,同时用笔杆代替枪杆子,用语言代替资金等非常规的措施,已经大见成效。实现了我事业上的历史性的转变和重大突破。2008年开始我完全走上了轨道,市场尽管出现大的危机和海啸,我在思想观念上,操作系统上非常成功地避免了市场的风险,钱再没有亏在市场上,并自己利用独特的市场演示能力,在海啸中乘风破浪,但因为大市场的特别原因,个别投资人又把资金安全问题提到在桌面上,加上竞争对手有针对性的策反,把刚好得到的成果又侵蚀,在2008年上半年几个月被少数几个人撤资累计近千万,下半年刚开始松口气,美国冒出个马道夫,媒体天天讲,月月讲,我在美国的投资人对市场非常关注,跟市场比较密切,马道夫事发以后,他们越来越担心并开始陆续撤资,因为宣传卓有成效和大量的实战演示,本来预期可以渡过恶劣的市场难关,已经到了2009 年初,几乎已经化险为夷,巨大风险已经基本过去,在市场崩溃以后 2009年本来还可以获得大资金和大量的资金,赢得历史性的机遇,一举定乾坤,确定我梦寐以求的市场地位,但在年前一个客户的十万的提款,突然改为百万,让我措手不及,资金提取开始出现故障,演变成挤兑,其实,我已经做到相当水平与高度了,大功就要告成,但是上帝一定要考验我。 第二届北美华人财富峰会和加拿大华人春节联欢晚会的举办是社会能力和市场能力的充分表现,它们为我在关键时刻赢得一个多月时间,在两会成功举办还没有得到收获前,我的金融市场操盘现场对公众和媒体的即时演示1% 回报独门技巧,没有达到预期 (每周100%)的目标,而不是1%的失误,引爆大规模挤兑和新闻事件。就在这一危机时刻和大众面前,我无意中本能地又一次充分表现出了真正的操盘能力和我的毒龙术,但人们已经不再关心我神奇的操盘能力,即使有也要被完全彻底地否定,一味要追问什么“股神”“华人巴菲特”钱在哪里,99% 在哪里,其实大多数钱早已被投资人取走了,现实是那么的残酷,大家要的是钱,不是对自己有用的操盘能力,忽视了可能,可靠的希望和巨大潜力。大多数人以为我失败了,没戏了,其实,我浑身积聚着巨大的能量和成功的奥秘,另外,我还为投资人做了一件伟大的开创性的事业,带头还钱。 大家都知道就在北美华人财富峰会之前后一个星期,从中国,从美国赶来的客人都亲眼目睹,我用100 万一个星期天天涨,赚了100多万,8天净赚2百1万。公开表演的一个星期100万一个星期因为没有99%, 要涨100% 才能达到所谓的1%。就在事发后,在一片混乱和大家都很紧张的形势下,大家亲眼目睹5个星期我创造了平均每个星期赚100万的记录,100 万一共赚500万,是什么能力和奇迹。本来世纪性的大熊市过后,机会何等难得,就是500万美元也是何等的珍贵,后来又成遗憾,几乎成为这500万的牺牲品,被人恶意利用和伤害。 另外,我在所有投资人的关注之下,证券会下交易禁止令之前三天从35完的帐户涨到44万,三天时间回报25%。后来,禁令以后,证券会发现我帮助好几个投资人的个人帐户一个星期,一个又一个翻番。证券会禁令以后,上百位投资人专门举行会议,到会的90% 的投资人签名要求证券会为我解除禁令,让投资人能够夺回损失,是正确的。很多人想方设法要学习我的操盘技巧和能力,有人不惜代价,直到目前为止很多人都想报名参加培训班,实战指导示范班,网上实战交易,希望学习和利用我的市场能力是件好事,投资人很多,生意人很少,股神只有一个。股神不是天上掉下来的,是一个人的天性+市场的实践+时间。 我融资靠的是正确的思想观念,思维方式,市场意识和运作能力(策划),更具体的是操盘技巧 失误是前期的风险管理,理想化 大家现在都知道钱是损失在市场和生意上,已经是过去,市场能力才是未来和希望,帐是死的,人是活的。从头来,一切不得不公开透明,全凭过硬的市场能力和责任心,包袱和压力没了,我可以专心致志,全心全意为投资人赚钱还钱,是多好的机会。 投资人读完这篇文章以后,反应一定非常很大,为什么不按规矩出牌,不及时及早公布投资真相,不老老实实做人,不认认真真办事,为什么要让我们投资人受骗上当,而不知其中的奥秘,是为了投资人你们的利益和未来,没有人这么做,更没有人做这么好,其实,没有人喜欢上当受骗的感觉,更不愿意接受损失,但是投资要有收获没有不上当的,投资到处是陷阱,特别是市场,只有我是善意的,风险和利益跟投资人是一致的,我是爱护,也是在极力保护投资人的。 毛泽东同志说“要奋斗就会有牺牲”, 投资一定有风险,我们的风险相比之下,是小的,暂时的,又算得了什么呢?我已经极力为投资人避免了风险,做得已经比市场好得多,只是在初级,中级阶段,没有完成整个过程。 如果不是历史问题,三年融资的就不是6 千万,而是6个亿,60个亿。本来几千万的损失很容易解决的,我心里有数,有每周1%回报的技巧和广泛的宣传,几个亿几十个亿也不是问题,市场很大。现在遗留问题解决了,几年以后没有什么能挡住我们前进的道路,为什么不是多少个亿呢? 要成就一番事业和一件大事,是需要付出的,我们的前途是光明的,道路是曲折的,作为带路人,领头羊,领袖人物,我自己的风险自然是最大的,因为市场,大家以经看到我受的损失,伤害最深。只有我是处处为投资人着想,为投资人我已经非常用心并冒着极大的风险,一步一步艰难走来到了今天已经达到了一定的程度和高度,人们只看到现状和暂时的结果,没有从出发点,过程和未来,以及最终的目的全面看问题,没有从总体上看问题,没有结合市场看问题,更不是从道理上看问题。 …

Add Your Heading Text Here

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Ut elit tellus, luctus nec ullamcorper mattis, pulvinar dapibus leo.

Add Your Heading Text Here

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Ut elit tellus, luctus nec ullamcorper mattis, pulvinar dapibus leo.

Add Your Heading Text Here

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Ut elit tellus, luctus nec ullamcorper mattis, pulvinar dapibus leo.

Add Your Heading Text Here

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Ut elit tellus, luctus nec ullamcorper mattis, pulvinar dapibus leo.

Spread the love