Anita HEARTS Mao!!!!
October 22, 2009 9 Comments
OH ANITA, MY DEAR LADY, SAY IT AIN’T SO!
The statements made by Anita Dunn about Chairman Mao to a group of high school students (at a graduation ceremony, no less) are truly appalling. To paraphrase, she considers Chairman Mao one of her two favorite political philosophers and turns to him in her hour of need…or… er…oh, something like that…you get the point…Why, according to Ms. Dunn, the Chairman is held in similar esteem to Mother Theresa!
WOW is all I can say! What ignorant and fatuous statements on Ms. Dunn’s part… Her message would be laughable if it were not so dangerous for impressionable young students. I would hate to indulge in character assassination by calling Ms. Dunn a stupid woman, but I find myself sorely tempted.
I shouldn’t be surprised, actually. As I said, Ms. Dunn’s words indicate to me that she could be ignorant, or should I qualify and say she’s perhaps simply un-educated or mis-educated (did she attend an Ivy League School?) Nor would I be surprised if, perhaps like some of her colleagues at the White House, she is infatuated and held in great thrall by the collectivist economic and social agenda of communism and is thus incapable of seeing Chairman Mao for what he was. Mao was a cruel and vicious dictator, who had no respect for human life and engaged in a completely degenerate lifestyle filled with all kinds of physical greed, including disgusting sexual excesses with people of both genders, the younger the better.
As Ms. Dunn suggests, Mao DID “do it his way,” regardless of what convention told him—oh yes did he ever “do it his way,” Ms. Dunn! In fact, doing it his way was one of the most strongly held tenets of his “philosophy”. Mao prided himself on living his life in direct opposition to the dictates of convention, sleeping at all hours of the day and night, staying awake for days, eating the peasant fare to which he was accustomed (and plenty of it while his people starved,) sleeping with whom he chose, never bathing, taking his chamber pot on international visits, forcing his entourage to wait upon him in ways that were highly inconsiderate if not actually detrimental to their health, and indulging in the written word (his own and others) in a manner which was nothing more than a diversion from the facts of his dictatorship—can you say “propaganda?” etc. etc. In short, Mao led a life of virtually total abandon with no moral constraints. The only constraints he did acknowledge were those necessary for him to maintain absolute power.
Anita Dunn’s comments have come to my attention while I’m in the process of reading “The Private Life of Chairman Mao,” written by the man who was his personal physician from 1954 to 1976. Reading this book has been a long and somewhat arduous process— in fact I have been reading it for months because many times I have had to put it down in utter revulsion. The portrait Dr. Li Zhisui paints is of a vile and gross man with a talent for words and showmanship who pulled the wool over the eyes of millions of Chinese and inspired them to venerate him and then…killed them.
I would highly recommend people read this book (if they can stand to) because it is more than a little thought provoking in the year 2009. Here is a quote from Dr. Li that I found particularly so:
‘And the Chinese people? The Communist party had taken “the people” and praised them to the sky while these very people were being oppressed and exploited, forced to endure every hardship, accept every insult, merely to survive. “The people” were nothing but a vast multitude of faceless, helpless slaves. This was the “new society,” the communists’ “new world.”‘
So much for the good works of Anita Dunn’s beloved political philosopher.
