Previous post
What is it about billionaires when dollar signs mean more to them than oppression of other humans? Or even the security of their own nation? Earlier this year, former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz claimed that China is “an ally” of the US. Even President Trump has called Chinese president Xi Jinping his “friend,” although he’s also giving Xi well-deserved heartburn. Now we hear how former NYC mayor Michael Bloomberg made comments in September that fawned over Chinese President Xi Jinping.
No one noticed very much back then. But those statements have returned in a big way now that Bloomberg is running for president.
Here’s what Michael Bloomberg told Margaret Hoover on PBS Firing Line on September 27:
“The communist party wants to stay in power in China, and they listen to the public. When the public says ‘I can’t breathe the air’ — Xi Jinping is not a dictator. He has to satisfy his constituents or he’s not going to survive.”
Hoover’s jaw practically hit the floor, and she boldly pushed back against such nonsense. But Bloomberg went on praising the Chinese dictator for cleaning up the air in Beijing. What a guy!
Say what you will about how decadent the internet is — in another time such dangerous notions would’ve been swept under the rug. But internet sleuths resurrected this nugget to show just how risky a Michael Bloomberg presidency would be.
Consider those words in light of the recently leaked files, exposed by the New York Times (Bloomberg’s hometown newspaper), which show how China has organized mass detentions of Uighur Muslims in the western Xinjiang province. The NYT described the camps as “the country’s most far-reaching internment campaign since the Mao era.”
Yet another bombshell emerged out of Xinjiang province just before the Thanksgiving holiday. The International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, or the ICIJ, exposed China’s operating manuals that use data analysis to select whom they will detain. Not criminal activity. Just algorithms. As a result, people randomly disappear. Residents of Xinjiang live in fear of being the next to be chosen.
Uighur children in Xinjiang. Credit: CJ Shane@flickr/CC BY-NC-SA 2.0.
As an Australian analyst studying these manuals said:
“That’s how state terror works. Part of the fear that this instills is that you don’t know when you’re not OK.”
And now, the New York Times reports that Chinese scientists are working on techniques that would allow them to map human faces through DNA. It’s an extension of DNA phenotyping, which is already used to determine a traits such as a person’s ethnicity, skin color, and eye color. In fact, Maryland police had already made use of phenotyping in a 2015 murder case.
But the Chinese want to go further by using DNA information not only to recreate faces but to determine whether someone is a Uighur as well. Uighurs are not part of the majority Han Chinese, but are a mix of European and East Asian ethnicity. Not only that, Chinese authorities have already collected millions of DNA samples from the Xinjiang province, taken from Uighur prisoners in the detention camps.
Chinese authorities are not collecting DNA through volunteers, either, according to human rights groups. DNA samples, iris checks, and other personal data are mined through mandatory health checks.
Which, of course, Chinese officials deny. Zhou Fang, head of a health commission in a Xinjiang city, said that its “Physicals for All” health programs are strictly voluntary. And no, they don’t collect DNA. “I’ve never heard of such a thing,” he said.
Another official became angry at reporters who asked about obtaining DNA through health checks:
“Do you think America has the ability to do these free health checks? Only the Communist Party can do that!”
Yeah, well, the Communist Chinese government already holds the world’s largest DNA database, and that’s apart from the Uighurs. It already possesses over 80 million DNA profiles, and I’m sure they won’t stop there, either.
Yet Michael Bloomberg says that Xi Jinping is “not a dictator.” Instead, he serves to “satisfy his constituents.” Which is complete nonsense, of course; Xi Jinping is a tyrant in the same mold as Mao Tse-tung, seeking to dominate the world at the expense of his own citizens.
But if you scratch deeper, you find that — surprise! — Bloomberg is heavily invested in China. He’s financing Chinese companies through US investor dollars he sends to the Chinese bond market. Plus, Bloomberg News also has a dirty history of killing stories about corruption within Xi Jinping’s family. No wonder he fawns over Xi.
What a shame that Michael Bloomberg cares more about making money than he is about human rights. Moreover, it’s clear that his massive fortune, not the United States, is his focus. He may be gaining in the polls right now, but this billionaire doesn’t belong anywhere near the White House. His kowtowing to Xi Jinping is proof of that.
Welcome, Instapundit readers!
Featured image: Brand X Studio/used by permission.
GWB says: Michael Bloomberg Has Dangerous Ideas About China
Oh, I don’t know. I don’t think they’re dangerous to the Chinese* at all.
(* The gov’t that is.)
Trump has called Chinese president Xi Jinping his “friend,”
The dude is everyone’s friend when he’s negotiating.
No one noticed very much back then
I did. It was on conservative sites. But we all thought “Meh, we always knew he was an idiot.” NOW it’s “Oh crap, that idiot is running for Democrat nomination for President. *smh*”
for All
strictly voluntary
Hmmm…. those seem … slightly exclusionary of each other…….
Only the Communist Party can do that!
I don’t know whether to challenge him on the basis of how much free medical care Americans provide around the world, on what the Red Chinese call “health checks”, or to shout “Thank goodness!”
he serves to “satisfy his constituents.”
A lot like Bloomberg did!
His kowtowing to Xi Jinping is proof of that.
Nah, his Big Gulp ban is enough proof. China is just extra ammo against him.
SDN says: Trump has called Chinese president Xi Jinping his “friend,”
The dude is everyone’s friend when he’s negotiating.
And her inability to distinguish between diplomatic fiction, actual reality, and private belief and opinion renders her judgement suspect.
Kim Hirsch says: And because I made a slight criticism of Trump calling Xi his “friend,” despite following up that statement with “he’s also giving Xi well-deserved heartburn,” my judgment is now “suspect.”
Sounds rather . . . totalitarian, doesn’t it? Like we all must agree with the dear leader, otherwise we are “suspect?”
Charles N. Steele says: *Everyone’s* judgement is suspect — if you’re a thinking person, you scrutinize everything others say. So sure, Kim Hirsch’s judgement is as suspect as anyone’s. But is there some particular reason you think she shouldn’t be holding Trump’s feet to the fire? If Bloomberg and Trump refer to Xi in similar fashion, should they not be treated in similar fashion? You think Trump gets a pass?
Mark A Terribile says: He may be thinking of how he ran NYC.
Charles Steele says: “CIJ exposed China’s operating manuals that use data analysis to select whom they will detain. Not criminal activity. Just algorithms. As a result, people randomly disappear.”
I taught economics at a Chinese university in late 90’s one thing the Chinese taught me was “execute one, warn one hundred,” the importance of cracking down hard on behavior one wishes to eliminate. I think this is so, but when I pressed them, they also made it clear that it didn’t really matter — from the standpoint of incentives — whether the one punished was actually guilty. Random disappearance, or disappearance by algorithm, is perfect for scaring people into docility.
Any would-be “leaders” who don’t condemn this sort of thing, and live up to their condemnation, are our enemies.
Joe in PNG says: It’s a thing Americans tend to not really grok about tyranny. We tend to think that the tyrants just up the number of rules on the populace, then wait for an efficient police state to arrest the miscreant for the inevitable wrongdoing.
And while there is an element of truth to that, the fact is that the rules don’t actually matter to the tyrant. The need for public criminals comes first, and they will then fit people to that bed of Proscrustes. That those people are most likely innocent is part of the process.
When Beria said “show me the man, and I will show you the crime”, he wasn’t boasting about his prowess as an investigator. Why waste time investigating when he’ll confess to anything you want after enough torture?
7 Comments