Op by Sunlit7
The uproar last week over Chamath Paliphapitiya statement that caring about genocide of the Uyghurs in China is below his lines of care brought me back to a couple of articles/podcast on the subject of China. One was a blog post I did on Nancy Pelosi titled "There's No Doubt Left, She Will Kill You" where during an interview on China she said:
With their military aggression in the South China Sea, with their continuation of genocide with the Uyghurs in Xinjiang province, with their violation of the cultural, religious priority of Tibet, with their suppression of democracy in Hong Kong and other parts of China as well, they’re just getting worse in terms of suppression and freedom of speech, I think said of all of that we have to work together on climate, climate is an overriding issue.
What Chamath said doesn't fall far from the tree in comparison to what Nancy said. Genocide doesn't rank at the top of the list. Ironically Chamath, after much backlash over his statement, comes out with an apology that aligned similar to a podcast I had listened to titled "Leadership Analysis: Understanding The Intensions and Actions of Global Leaders" on the Bush China Foundation website. Chamath's explanation for his remarks ran a similar analogy to the new globalist stance on evil world leaders. We can no longer look at them in the context of their ruthlessness we must gain an understanding of what brought them to this place in life. Judging them along the lines of evilness is actually now considered bias and we must learn to view them through a culture filter and to have a certain sense of empathy in how a leader sees the world. In other words we need to humanize them.
Dr. Kenneth Dekleva, psychiatrist and former State Department official and fellow at the Bush China Foundation said it is critically important to add a personal human touch to adversarial leaders. He likened it to his early years working in the prison system talking with inmates who had done horrendous things in their lives. Humanizing them, gaining insight to what brought them there leads, well, in my opinion of what he said, to the option to overlook or excuse the behavior by circumstances befallen upon the individual.
Leadership analysis is a niche kind of portion to a larger discipline of intelligence analysis where you are trying to understand political motivation, a leaders negotiating style, how a leader may react in a crisis and in a sense what makes the leader unique and what makes them tick. And part of understanding that is important, even in analyzing leaders who are autocratic, ruthless, dictatorial and leaders who've often done horrible things in terms of supporting acts of violence, is trying to understand the leader through a culture filter and to have a certain sense of empathy in thinking about how would the leader, would see the world, how they'd see it through their eyes and the eyes of the people who work with them and interact with them.
He goes on to give an example of Chinese president XI Jinping. When Jinping was fourteen years old his father was thrown out of the cultural revolution, little Jinping barely managed not to be shot and was banished off to a distant place in his country where he labored until he could manage to rise above it all. Once you could humanize Jinping in that manner you could clearly see now that the assessment of Jinping was all wrong:
Quite truly an impressive leader, the most powerful man in the world today. He has remarkable strength in the power he has accumulated. His combination of resilience, inter-strength, combined with his vision of the Chinese dream of reinvigoration along with a personal narrative has made him, he's truly a remarkable leader, we got him wrong.
He goes on to praise Trump for his humanizing efforts with Kim Jong Un, though it opened up limited dialogue in the long run humanizing ruthless leaders can lead to changes in their behavior he said and he gives an example that Kim stopped flinging missiles off into the sea. Ruthless, evil, vile acts has now been cast off into a backroom labeled as a mere opposing of cultural views in the quest of global cooperation in the new world globalist order.
Defunding the police, sensitizing criminal behavior and humanizing the behavior of tyrants should send chills down your spine. The harsh reality is that for many it won't. The vast majority of them won't allow their conscience to accept it was below their lines of cares, if they did they'd been on twitter repenting not condemning a truth. That, in a nutshell, is how we got to this discussion but by next week it will be below the lines of cares. NBA tickets anybody?
******
You can find the links inside this story by going to my blog
hive .blog/ deepdives/@sunlit7/leadership-analysis-understanding-the-intensions-and-actions-of-global-leaders
or inputting the links below into your browser
bushchinafoundation. org/ leadership-analysis-understanding-the-intentions-and-actions-of-global-leaders/
/hive. blog/ deepdives/@sunlit7/there-s-no-doubt-left-she-will-kill-you