Parcurgand comentariile dobandesti strania impresie ca cei mai multi cititori au inteles analiza Rachman nu atat ca o reformulare a propagandei chineze in ce priveste coronavirusul, asadar anuntand triumfator ca au castigat batalia si acum ajuta pe altii in nevoie. Ceea ce - se poate accepta speculatia facuta de Rachman – ca Beijingul a urmarit demonstrati superioritatii propriului sistem politic. Nu mai este nevoie sa spunem cum trebuie si este definit acest sistem: anume communist, intemeiat pe trasaturi traditionale chineze ( aici sunt foarte multe nuante , care nu lipsesc, dintre cele principale , din comentariile la analiza Rachman) .
Ci , asa cum vadesc cele mai multe comentarii, – este cvasi-inexplicabil cum s-a ajuns la aceasta interpretare – ca Rachman ar fi avansat teza ca avem de a face cu o schimbare a naratiunii care ar trebui sa fie proprie Occidentului, anume ca China deja a castigat hegemonia sistemica in dauna SUA. Aceasta teza ar putea avea o justiifcare infaptul ca China déjà nu mai raporteaza noi molipsiti de Covid-19, in timp ce Occidentul ( Europa si SUA se zbate sa raspunda efficient molimei pustiitoare ). Este adevarat ca Rachman a intervenit de doua ori pentru a domoli aceasta deriva de interpretare, dar a fost pus imediat pus la punct si admonestat. Iata cum ( si este una decenta ): “Mr Rachman, you are falling into the left wing trap of admiring boomerangs launched by leftists. One child policy, Great Leap Forward, forced literacy. More recently me too and Russia (Ukraine? China?) collusion.”
Ghidandu-ne dupa numarul celor mai apreciate comentarii observam ca o chestiune care preocupa pe toti urmaritorii este aceea a originii virusului. Este oare acesta o licenta a Chinei sau este cu totul intmplator ca a aparut in Wuhan de unde s-a raspandit mai intai in China apoi global. La prima vedere pare o chestiune minora, dar din perspective geopolitica joaca un rol fundamental pentru ca ca defineste ‘ agresorul’ , cel care a facut prima miscare pentru a lua initiative ( strategica, in termeni de infruntare militara ). Astfel , se explica de ce de cateva zile presedintele Trump numeste, in pofida criticilor din SUA , Covid-19 ca ‘ virusul chinezesc’ implantand in subconstientul politic al celor care il urmaresc ca China este vinovata pentru pandemia globala. Iata ce scrie la ‘analiza Rachman’ cel creditat cu cele mai multe likes:
“The virus emerged in China because of lax regulation in food markets. It proliferated because the doctors who foresaw the risk were persecuted and it went global because China was far too slow to act. A regime that suppressed objective truth, thus causing a global pandemic should be acting with humility and helping the rest of the world to cope. To seek to make a propaganda coup of these tragic events shows they have learnt nothing. Compare and contrast with Taiwan “
Identificam aici toate ingredientele ‘ vinovatiei’ Chinei in raspandirea globala a Covidf-19, care ar fi determinat uriasa provovare cu care se confrunta azi Occidentul: reglementarile slabe ale pietei interne chineze de animale vii ( teoria’ supei de lilieci’ privind originea pandemiei ) care s-au adaugat nepermis din diverse motive interventiei tarzii impotriva ravagiilor virusului, un regim care interzice/ascunde adevarul si-l cosmetizeaza dupa interese proprii , iar in acest fel se fac vinovati de a fi informat semenii comunitatii umane planetare despre tragedia abatuta asupra lor. Ca autoritatile n-au stiut/ banuit consecintele globale ? Greu de spus daca asemenea ignoranta le-ar absolvi de vina.
In acelasi timp licareste si glasul ratiunii impartasit de nu putini, care arata ca au fost si altii ( SUA ) , care au gresit istoric : “ Should we rename HIV African virus and rename H1N1 American virus? Epidemic is everywhere and in every year. Human being is still learning to prevent disease” . Asadar apel la alte pandemii recente déjà cunoscute privind originea si ‘dubla masura ‘ utilizata in acest caz. Ceea ce se reproseaza Chinei insa, prin comparatie cu alte state in situatii similare in acelasi timp este ca “China in contrast, needs this propaganda in order to retain power, and is using this terrible situation to create advantages for itself. Some of that has been beneficial such as bringing medical supplies to Italy, some has been detrimental such as the conspiracy theories, online attacks, etc. We live in interesting times.” 
In schimb sunt si cititori/comentatori si care arata ca “Sad to say that Mr Rachman is ‘spot-on’ and the Western World only has itself to blame.”, iar lumea intreaga “know that soon the COVID-19 crisis will be knocking on their doors. They know a hotter climate is not going to save them - see Singapore, a city with a tropical climate “ , dar “Faced with a crisis in Italy, the EU quickly dropped any pretense of solidarity, while a lack of coordination amongst EU members resulted in each EU country now fending for themselves”. In acelasi timp cu aceste scaderi ale Vestului “ The US is being run by an incompetent narcissist, who until recently downplayed the risks” .
Pe acest fundal s-a ridicat intrebarea de cei ( vorbim aici de state, unele foarte puternice ) in cautarea supravietuirii: “When looking for help, such as medical supplies, financial support and a crisis response strategy which has proven to work: will Emerging Markets look at China, or the democratic world ? “ Iar incheierea nu e departe de concluzia lui Rachman, iar 26 de cititori impartasesc aceasta consideratie de perspectiva: “The new Coronavirus may have originated from China, but China will come out as a clear winner - not the US, not Europe, and democratic Asian countries unlikely to pick up the tab. Start of a new political dawn? ”
Aceasta incheiere apartine comentariilor ( putine la numar ) care apartin ‘taberei’ pragmatice ( trebuie sa biruim in aceasta infruntare existentiala) . Tot astfel un cititor scrie: “once realized the gravity of the issue, we have to give China huge credit for massive and speedy mobilization at high costs of locking down an entire city, the size of New York. It bought a couple of months for other countries to be prepared. Unfortunately, many western countries, particularly US and Europe, were too happy to blame China and thought it would never affect them, and they are paying the price for it. So, all in all, China deserves more credit than blame, and now that China is coming out of the darkest moment, and is able to helping others like Iran and Italy. “
In acest context, se specifica cat de daunatoare este politizarea dosarului, intrucat acum este nevoie de solidaritate . Este un alt mod de a reclama ca globalizarea trebuie sa continue, nemaifiind vorba acum de castigatori sau loseri, cat de a frange acest obstacol redutabil in calea avansului globalist:“Why politicize this issue? It is evident that the West has dealt with this disastrously thus far and that China has had, for whatever reason, moderate success. So much is clear.
But why politicize this? At this point in time the entire world needs to be working together and learning from each other. Lives are at stake so who really cares about how or who provides the lessons and resources to save lives and provide proper care? ”
Mai mult, unii comentatori ( este adevarat , putini la numar, ei avand a fi plasati in tabara pragmaticilor) ca este prea devreme de a vorbi de o schimbare geopolitica masiva, asadar ca China ar inlocui curand cu aceasta ocazie a luptei impotriva Covid-19, hegemonia americana in sistemul international: “It's too early to predict any geopolitical shifts. It may easily end up backfiring for China, we simply don't know that yet. If I were to bet on one thing: global supply chains will be dramatically reconfigured in the wake of this crisis. To give one example: There is only 1 producer (Covidien in the US) of Parcethamol left in the western world. Europe's last plant closed in 2009. Not that Paracetamol will cure this epidemic, but it serves as a red flag. We will therefore see on-/near- or back shoring of critical industries on a considerable scale... China will not necessarily be the beneficiary of this. To be frank, the West brought this upon himself, by complacency, greed and arrogance. Maybe its time to wake up and smell the coffee.”
Motivatia acestei abordari pragmatic este simpla: ar interveni in cazul unui asemenea ‘shift geopolitic’ o dramatica reconfigurare a retelelor de aprovizionare globala, fiind adus in discutie un amanunt extrem de important, adeseori luat in calcul in dezbatere. Anume ca China are rolul principal in industria farmaceutica globala, iar promovarea unui astfel de ‘shift’ ar pune Vestul intr-o pozitie absolute inconfortabila, lipsindu-l de un sector vital pentru coeziunea societala atat de necesara in caz de conflict ( chiar razboi ) cu China . Un alt cititor ridica , in acest context, o chestiune vitala: “What it is clear is that the world cannot go back to depended exclusively on China as a manufacturer of its own goods. Its ludicrous to think that we should depend this much in one country.”  Replica vine imediat si e izvorata din magnitudinea problemei, doar ca sugestia facuta are aceeasi ordine de marime: “Is there a realistic alternative ? The better option is to turn China into a country we can all live with, by supporting those who wish to remove the regime of Xi Jinping, their repression, their lies and all their evil works. A distinction must be drawn between most Chinese, on the one hand, and the evil few on the other, most of whom are known as the Chinese Communist Party. “
Pe masura ce se aglomereaza comentariile, orientarea lor ia o directie neprevazuta, transformandu-se accelerat intr-un trend anti-chinez ( cu variante : anti-comunista; anti-autoritara; pro-democratica). Noua naratiune ar putea fi definita ca pro-occidentala deopotriva, aparatoare a democratiei amenintate de dusmanul nevazut Covid-19, dar ‘personificat ‘ de China comunista. Concomitent orientarea este impregnata de tendinte vizibile ideologic : in unele cazuri se poate decela orientarea globalista ( “ Covid -19 este o chestiune globala si necesita un raspuns pe potriva’) , in altele are impuls “patriotic’ ( ‘trumpist’ ) la esalon occidental insa ( dar nu rareori fiind facute direct referiri la SUA ) . In alte cazuri , mai putine insa , referirile sunt facute in continuare pe ‘reteta’ din articolul lui Gideon Rachman , anume ‘autoritarism versus democratie’ , dar in pofida realismului lor, prin pozitionarea de partea sistemului democratic , autorii fiind contra ‘sistemului chinez’ se plaseaza , poate fara voie, in trendul predominant anti-China . Desigur se pot desprinde abordari violente in cadrul acestui trend- incat poate fi banuita o campanie programata- sunt numeroase acuze de ‘troli’ fie chinezi, fie altii- de sustinere a lui . Unele asemenea abordari merg pana la a solicita despagubiri ( ‘nota de plata’ ) Chinei pentru daunele produse Occidentului prin raspandirea globala a Covid-19, ceva in genul reparatiilor de razboi ( ceea ce a prilejuit si una dintre interventiile lui Gideon Rachman ) La un anumit moment , distinctia clara intre cele doua ‘tabere’ este limpede si infricosatoare ( intr-un fragment izolat este facuta aluzie chiar la razboi ‘cald’ impotriva Chinei intr-un schimb de replici  ) , chiar in amestecul de orientari ‘globaliste’ sau ‘nationaliste’ evidentiindu-se – cu diferentele inevitabile - o solidaritate marcata a Vestului fata de sistemul democratic propriu ( cineva exclama: “ mai bine mort decat sub system chinez” ) .
Exista si o alta fateta a acestui trend sa-I spunem anti-China comunista ( se fac diferentele subtile de unii comentatori intre China comunista si alte tari’ confucianiste’ : Taiwan, Hong Kong , Koreea de Sud, Singapore, Japonia ): unii comentatori sunt de acord ca democratia este sistemul mai bun in comparatie cu autoritarismul sau comunismul , dar se departeaza de invinovatirea Chinei comuniste pe temeiul ca virusul Covid-19 fiind o pandemie globala trebuie o solutie globala sau ca chiar democratiile – se dau si exemple- trebuie sa ia asemenea masuri dure, de tip autoritarist.
Altii – nu sunt multi ,dar sunt- considera ca opozitia interna fata de conducerea comunista chineza va duce la transformarea acestei tari, iar globalizarea va continua astfel nestingherita dupa depasirea acestui episode existential. Este o teza pe care am interpretat-o in cheia deopotriva a unui ‘wishful thinking’ perimat, dar si al preocuparii fata de extensia unui trend ‘China – bashing’ de rau augur pentru securitatea internationala si economia globala. Adica, pe scurt, cresterea sanselor de-globalizarii si riscului de razboi hegemonic
Debutul noii naratiuni il face un anume Geoffrey Nicholson, care lanseaza tirul a ceea ce poate fi numit “atac la China si regimul ei comunist”. In cel dintai , el scrie direct: “/…/You did not listen to Biden last night. No one will get elected in the US this fall who does not pledge to substantially shut the doors on Chinese goods and influence. The slowing in the Chinese economy seen in this morning’s numbers is in my view likely a harbinger of future western attitudes to future links with a China led by the Communist Party. They are going to have to work very hard to buy Hunter and Joe Biden and still see them get elected in an America that is furious at China. “  Iar in cel de al doilea fixeaza coloana vertebrala a noii naratiuni care devine predominant ( desi sunt auzite , slab, si glasuir realiste, chiar pro-China) :” Who cares about the results of a popularity contest? China likes to claim that it has a system whereby their government executive are selected on merit, much like the rest of the civil service. Whether you believe them on that or not is not the point; the point is, it's a fundamentally different way of doing government than the West's popularity contests. And the question is, which is the better at containing pandemics? Only time will tell - but right now, it looks like the China system has got a better hold on things.” 
Referirile sunt facute la challenger-ul lui Trump in viitoarele alegeri prezidentiale, alegerile ( primare) democrate fiind recent castigate de Joe Biden, despre care presa a scris ca ar fi fost cultivat de China prin anumite operatiuni oculte vizandu-l si pe fiul sau Hunter.
Noua naratiune intervenita brusc poate fi asadar considerata ca vizand si obiective interne politice in SUA, evident pro-Trump. Sa fie angajata déjà Campania prezidentiala in SUA , utilizand problematica Covid-19 ? Sa fie atat de importanta indepartarea lui Trump de la Casa Alba incat sa fie totul subsumat acestui obiectiv, inclusive apararea impotriva ‘ inamicului nevazut’ ?
Deocamdata nu ne adresam acestor legitime intrebari, urmatorul raport incercand o schita de raspuns.
Acum trebuie sa luam in considerare modul in care se pregateste aceasta noua naratiune in care China este vazuta ca dusman , inclusiv cei care au cea mai mica indoiala asupra acestei invocate realitati geopolitice .
Asadar, orientarea “ anti-China comunista” este intarita si de anumite componente ale naratiunii anti –China din comentariile la analiza ranchman , care vor fi exemplificate mai departe. Cum ar fi :
1.-Originea chineza a virusului, stiut fiind ca presedintele Trump este cel care a inaugurat desemnarea acestuia ca “ chinez” sau “ Wuhan”, ca in urmatoarele comentarii:
“Another key question: Which system- the open and democratic or the closed and authoritarian- causes the more global pandemics in the first place. That’s something the world will be investigating later this year/ early next year...Because the real issue owns ‘system effectiveness’ is not managing a global health crisis: its stopping it from occurring to begin with !‘Getting ‘sick’ and tired of the praise lavished on China by the WHO and a section of the media.The Wuhan virus was born of CCP incompetence and corruption. It spread thanks to absolute censorship. It has now been contained if you believe the numbers, but how can you? The horror of what happened in Wuhan is yet to be revealed to its full extent.Now it is clear the propaganda machine is working full turbo to ‘turn a funeral into a wedding’, rewrite history and undermine Western democracy.So please stop describing China's approach as a success and remember to refer to the ‘Wuhan virus’; it is where it originated after all.”
“/…/there is no room for China in free democratic world till it changes its way of working. China has a toxic mix of three characteristics - major economic power , communist ( authoritarian ) and poor hygiene standards. This makes it a very dangerous country. China can expect major backlash from democratic countries. For democratic countries , there is nothing more important than life and freedom of an individual. China does not care about both. In 21st Century, in China one can even not have freedom to choose something as basic as email service provider ( e.g Gmail) . NO MORE CHINA!!!!” 
“China deserves more credit than blame? Generally speaking, unleashing a global pandemic and a worldwide depression gets pretty low marks in my opinion.”
2. Sistemul de guvernare comunist, care nu poate fi comparat cu cel democratic, privind echitatea alegerilor , transparenta, responsabilitatea liderilor , etc.:
“To my way of thinking, the ideal system of governance is the one in which there's a mechanism by which ordinary people can hold the people in authority to account over the decisions that they have made. People like to think that regular elections do this - but really, they don't do it that well. Legal systems are potentially a much better means of doing it - however, it's only possible to use legal systems for such a purpose if you have a clear constitution that prescribes the powers of the various different authorities, and what their responsibilities are.”
‘Well, just to be precise: the 2 - 3 people you mention as leaders of the political parties are also internally elected by the respective parties, very often in a transparent, public, and quite disputed process.
Also, while I don't know the situation in China, as a Romanian (old enough, also), I can tell you a thing or two about the fairness of the elections within a Communist Party. Maybe the Chinese party is different... I think the following results are quite disclosing:
President - Xi Jinping - For 2980 / Against 0
Vice President - Wang Qishan For 2969 / Against 1
NPCSC Vice Chairman - Wang Chen For 2980 / Against 0
Cao Jianmng - For 2980 / Against 0
Ji Bingxuan - For 2980 / Against 0
Maybe this looks like democracy to you. Maybe. But let's be honest what we mean by democracy then - a farcical facade with no internal meaning.” 
“The head of Wuhan central hospital sounded the alarm in December by posting information on the new virus on WeChat. Her interview on WeChat , suggesting an opportunity for Chinese authorities to take early action, was later deleted from WeChat and she was silenced by local officials. See this article in the South China Morning Post:
“Complete none sense by a biased & incompetent journalist. At least he should be glad he does not operate in an authoritarian regime because views like this one, would never see the light.
Fact #1: Figures from China are what they are if you trust them. The spread velocity, given the virus started at some point in December, suggest that China is significantly under reporting the total number of cases & deaths.
Fact #2: WHO an international organization was too slow to enter China, evaluate the vitality of Covid-19 and declare it a global pandemic. International bodies failed on their job to advise governments on a course of action.
Fact #3: Asian countries have had more recent experience & memory from fast spreading viruses, which led them to be better prepared to tackle Covid-19.”
“No bat-eating, no Communist Party, and NO COVER-UP - no Wuhan virus
see this article in the South China Morning Post about a senior doctor in December at Wuhan central hospital who tried to raise the alarm about a new virus but was silenced by Party officials:
“Clearly the Chinese government and its shills will try to make this argument.
Personally I don't disagree that an authoritarian regime may well find it easier to take draconian action to stop the spread of a disease. I would demur, however, at the suggestion that this makes authoritarian government desirable. Covid19 would have to get a very great deal worse than any suggestion that I have seen before that would start to seem like an attractive trade!” 
”What a strange logic; the poor state of the live markets remains, the cover-ups didn’t work, and the generosity is based on out-Europeanising the Europeans. Come on, G /ideon/ R/achman/ “ 
“Mr Rachman worries too much about the supposed demise of "liberal democracy" and the supposed rise of authoritarianism. The propaganda machine is obviously operating at full bore at the moment to further deify Mr Xi, but at least the Chinese government deserves praise for limiting the spread of the virus within its borders. China on the other hand deserves condemnation in full for the so-called wet markets. China as country has many problems, so I recommend that Mr Rachman relax with regard to its rapid economic rise. Chinese always view themselves as part of the Inner Kingdam, i.e. only internal Chinese matters have any importance. The outside world has always had a minor role in Chinese society and politics.”
“For once, there seems to be a general consensus among commentators on this thread:
- the CCP deserves no respect whatsoever for its handling of this crisis. Their suppression of the information in the crucial early stages contributed to the spread of the virus. Earlier intervention could have stopped it in its tracks. The persecution of medical staff and officials who tried to raise the alarm early on makes Xi and his robots all the more culpable.
- it is too much of a coincidence that the virus originated in Wuhan, where the Institute of Virology has been studying coronaviruses.
- the Putinesque suggestion by Chinese officials that the virus originated from US servicemen is laughable but indicates that the CCP will stoop as low as it needs to in order to avoid the blame.
- yes, lockdowns work better in authoritarian regimes where the population have no choice and are treated like sheep. That's hardly a reason to endorse the regime or its policies, and it's still too early to judge whether this has been a success.
- it's time the Chinese authorities got to grips with medieval attitudes towards animals as food and medicine. So-called wet markets are clearly not a good idea - neither for humans nor for the poor animals. And a pinch of Rhino horn in your tea will not make you better.
My favorite line from the article was about Xi having a "pure heart, like a newborn's". One has to believe that someone at the Xinhua news agency has a sense of humor...” 
“When I read opinions such as those manifested by “ RGW” I am astounded. My first advise to such persons would be to go and live in the countries where the rights of individuals ‘ have gone too far’ and where minorities cannot ’overall majorities’. - of course first surrendering their passports. I wonder whether after one year in spent in such a country as a normal citizen they would continue to express the same views. It so happens that I did live under an authoritarian regime where the then communist government arbitrarily decided what was better for the people - read better for them to prolong their grip on power. 20th century world history is full of dictators who also preached that the nation ( as defined by them of course!) is superior to the individual and minorities , like for example Jews, must submit to the majority. We know the results ! There are a lot of things we can learn from the Chinese- and mutually - but certainly not how to organise society.” 
3. Este necesara relocarea la locul de origine a intreprinderilor occidentale relocalizate in trecut in China , pentru a putea rezista asaltului. Intai de toate a industriei farmaceutice:
“It's too early to predict any geopolitical shifts. It may easily end up backfiring for China, we simply don't know that yet. If I were to bet on one thing: global supply chains will be dramatically reconfigured in the wake of this crisis. To give one example: There is only 1 producer (Covidien in the US) of Paracetamol left in the western world. Europe's last plant closed in 2009. Not that Paracetamol will cure this epidemic, but it serves as a red flag. We will therefore see on-/near- or back shoring of critical industries on a considerable scale... China will not necessarily be the beneficiary of this. To be frank, the West brought this upon himself, by complacency, greed and arrogance. Maybe its time to wake up and smell the coffee.”
“The single most important thing that can come from this is removing all critical manufacturing out of china ASAP and back to the us or reliable allies. Medical equipment, drugs, etc. We need all of that brought home.” 
“What it is clear is that the world cannot go back to depended exclusively on China as a manufacturer of its own goods. Its ludicrous to think that we should depend this much in one country.”
4. Trasaturi ale propagandei Chinei ( teorii conspirationsite) lansata pentru a blama Vestul de o vina care apartine Chinei:
“Some Chinese officials have also demonstrated their anxiety to shift the blame, by suggesting the virus actually originated in the US.
Started by the Conservative Party's Russian donors back in January
In Russia these theories are appearing on prominent mainstream news discussion shows such as Big Game and Time Will Tell on Channel 1, rather than just being confined to squalid corners of the internet.In late January, the firebrand leader of the far-right Liberal Democratic Party of Russia party told a Moscow radio station that he thought coronavirus was an American bioweapon or a big plot by pharmaceutical companies to get richer. Russian efforts to undermine Western countries long predates the outbreak of coronavirus. The nature of the messaging and their singling out of the United States are typical of the Kremlin’s disinformation playbook, which loyal editors and producers are well familiar with—and know the political necessity of sticking to. The overarching theme of the stories that appear across the Russian media, from fringe websites to prime-time television, is that the virus is the product of U.S. labs, intended to kneecap China’s economic development.
Some articles have flirted with the idea that Bill Gates or Kremlin nemesis George Soros might have had a hand in the outbreak. In one of the more bizarre turns, a host on Russia’s state-funded Channel 1 floated the idea that the name ‘coronavirus’, is a veiled reference to its American origins, because U.S. President Donald Trump once handed out crowns at beauty pageants, and corona means crown in Latin. (Coronaviruses are, in fact, a well-established group of viruses whose name is a reference to their shape.)”
5 Intarirea orientarii de opinie publica anti-China in Occident :
“Trump, to divert attention from his failings and win the elections, will toughen the stance on tariffs - deal will not be reached any time soon, in fact most Americans at that point will reject the idea of a deal with China. Anti-China sentiment will proliferate in Europe and elsewhere. Suddenly western economies realize that they can do well with or without China.Hasn’t he already tried for the last 2.5 years? Easier said than done.” 
6. Gideon Rachman si “ Financial Times” promoveaza tezele propagandei chineze:
“Trump didn’t call the virus a hoax just like he didn’t call white nationalists “fine people” in the wake of Charlottesville. His response to covid 19 has not been perfect but he has acted early and so far those actions seem to have mitigated the spread. Borders are important despite the drivel from the progressive left. The FT, in their relentless efforts to undermine Trump, spent the last three years calling him a Russian puppet lending more credibility to Russia and Putin than they ever deserved. Now, Gideon is essentially saying it’s unthinkable to justify China’s regime but in the face of Trump, it might be justifiable. It’s shameful stuff. Let’s not forget where this virus originated, where it was lied about and where the government welded people shut inside their homes to stop its spread. This virus will pass and history will show it as another example of why Trump was right to call out China and challenge its leaders for the sake of liberty everywhere. The FT has been on the wrong side of history for years now. Sad”
“Mr Rachman should understand that there has been for some weeks a widely-shared and vibrant series of exchanges on WeChat in China which is highly critical of the system and of Xi Jinping. As one Chinese post said:" I know, you know, we all know..." And there are many others in the same vein. Many Chinese inside and outside China would change the system if they could. But the only way is for 10 million people to take to the streets. This is not going to happen in a place like China. But maybe...” 
“We have been bamboozled by Mr Rachman’s cloak as an inveterate reactionary; it turns out he is a Chinese mole! Singing their praises to high heaven without so much as a red blush. The FT’s Office of Anglo-Saxon Superiority, Salvation and Enlightenment should pore over his dossier again, and with a fine-tooth comb.”
“How ironic if a virus which stemmed form China and spread to the world because of Chinese incompetence and failed system of governance would result in China becoming stronger! I would like to believe otherwise.”
Nu inseamna insa ca acest trend , care incearca sa devina predominant in comentariile ‘ analizei Rachman’, nu intampina opozitie. Dar cum se coaguleaza aceasta opozitie o data ce se intelege ca in comentarii se intampla ceva ciudat si foarte important totusi.
WendellMurray to Wenren:That may happen.
Wenren to WendellMurray: For some enterprising trial lawyer, who isn't in jail, this could be akin to suing the Nazis such as: https://www.thelocal.at/20200125/rothschild-heir-accuses-vienna-of-perpetuating-nazi-laws-reports
EinarBB to Wenren:Your idea is to start a war with China right after the most destructive for the economies of the world since 1929 event, as only full defeat of Nazis made that possible and world has nukes now - so it real quick transforms into actual end of the world scenario.Any more absolutely mad ideas?
Wenren to EinarBB:Didn't suggest war, but you always read and write like a great Dane.
EinarBB to Wenren:The only known historic examples of country being defeated to such degree that reparations costs could then be imposed on it -- are from aftermaths of major wars.Sure you didn't outright say -war- however hard to see what else it could be.After all you could hardly expect Chinese leadership not to contest to the utmost any en-circulation move of the nature you may be imagining as precursor to -- imposing such demands.And even if China might not end up brimming with allies, it would appear unlikely it would have none - and China's most likely ally also happens to be nuclear armed.Thus it looks and feels like an end to the world scenario - irrespective of your protests.”