Home > Uncategorized > Western Blogger Warns China, By Threatening Pogrom Against Ethnic Chinese

Western Blogger Warns China, By Threatening Pogrom Against Ethnic Chinese

On the recent Plastic cup pelting/ “attack” on the vehicle of U.S. Ambassador, Gary Locke, a Western Blogger gathered evidence of Chinese government’s “not doing enough”, and then implied that the Chinese government, by “not doing enough”, was fanning the flame of nationalism, (even perhaps planning it).


Then he had this gem in his blog:

China will condemn the attack, and find and punish the rioters responsible, but this will not sake the anger of the United States Congress, which will (because it is mostly full of idiots) be screaming for blood. Some will consider it an act of war. Chinese flags will be burned in the streets, and Chinese-Americans will start saying their parents are Taiwanese, at least for a little while. It will get ugly, and even imagining the best case scenario, it will impede any kind of development in the Sino-US relationship for years to come. Meanwhile, Chinese nationalists will be protesting the backlash, creating an echo-chamber of nationalist yelling and mutual flag-burning.


I don’t know what message is being sent by blogger above.

(1) So, US Congress, the product of 2 centuries of “Democracy” and free speech, would react by declaring war for Chinese government’s “not doing enough”?  But that’s just the US Congress being “idiots”, while a similar Chinese backlash would be “nationalistic”?

(2) It sounded like a threat of pogrom against Ethnic Chinese Americans.  Wait, US Congress, the product of 2 centuries of “Democracy” and free speech, might actually consider putting their own citizens in fear for their lives.  For example, Gary Locke, the very same US Ambassador, is also an ethnic Chinese, and he would also fear for his life??  (Ironically, Gary Locke did receive death threats in US, when he was Governor of Washington State).  Hmm…  This selling pitch for “Freedom” and “Democracy” is not going well….

(3) The blogger goes onto disclaim, “Of course, it’s possible that this will never happen. I’m not sure what the chances are.”

And yet, the blogger went to such extensive details for his imagination.  So, what was the point?  He just wanted to fantasize about Chinese Americans living in fear??  (Well, for certain, he’s not speaking for the US Congress, was he?  Or was he URGING the US Congress to behave in the most idiotic manner he could imagine?)

(4) Now, if say the a Chinese TV host similarly imagined a China, where he says,

“Oh, if Americans did …. (say, bomb a Chinese embassy), even if they make excuses, this will not sake the anger of the Chinese government, which will (because it is mostly full of idiots) be screaming for blood.  Some will consider it an act of war.  US flags will be burned in the streets, and Americans will start saying they are Europeans, at least for a little while. It will get ugly!”

Hmm….  I wonder what US bloggers might say about such a Chinese TV host??

“Inflaming Xenophobia”, anyone??

Problem is, “free media” are quite “free”/uncontrolled in generating/ sensationalizing /spreading xenophobia and nationalism.  Rational voices do not off set them.  That’s how you get US Congress full of “idiots” in the first place.

Do rational voices get elected?  No.

Do extreme idiotic loud opinionated delusional people get elected in US?  Quite often.

And China should become “democratic” to cure its “nationalism”??  A bit optimistic of an recommendation for Western bloggers who don’t have much faith in what/who gets elected in Western “Democracies” and “free speech”.

Oh, well, thank heavens Chinese TV hosts aren’t as xenophobic as some bloggers, and thank heavens in China, bloggers will answer to the consequences of what they write.  (In US, they just get famous for more outrageous bullsh*t imagination, or maybe even get elected to US Congress, the BullSh*t Superdome).



Categories: Uncategorized Tags:
  1. pug_ster
    September 22nd, 2012 at 14:58 | #1

    Whiners like Charlie Custer should really grow a backbone. I recall when Tibetans threw eggs and damaged the Chinese Embassy, you don’t see the Chinese media complain about it. Morons like him think that America is loved by everyone while ignorant why many Muslims are angry in the first place.

  2. N.M.Cheung
    September 22nd, 2012 at 16:38 | #2

    I really don’t think we should waste time quoting a blogger’s paranoid delusion. Against Economist’s ignorant reporting by all means debunk them. I am sure someone could also quote some ignorant comments in Chinese blogger which will also serve no purpose.

  3. pug_ster
    September 22nd, 2012 at 17:12 | #3


    i would believe you but the problem is that the Western propaganda actually take people like this fool seriously.

  4. September 22nd, 2012 at 17:20 | #4

    From that quote, it doesn’t sound like a threat of a pogrom at all. It may very well be that a war with China will be what the congress wants.

  5. Wahaha
    September 22nd, 2012 at 18:10 | #5

    West media lost its credibility among Chinese people.

    Now westerners pull themselves down from moral high ground by overwhelmingly on Japan’s side. They talk like it was Japan that suffered the atrocity during WWII, a clear symptom of hatred towards China, not just CCP.

  6. September 22nd, 2012 at 19:21 | #6

    I agree, these are probaly agents, mouth pieces, and information gatherers in the name of journalist only. Most of us should not read their articles while others should keep an eye to inform rest of us.

  7. N.M.Cheung
    September 22nd, 2012 at 20:06 | #7

    The problem with the Western Media is although they claim to be fair and balance, in reality it’s more like a slogan used by the Fox Channel. Most commentators (Nickalous Kristof excepted) have no historical background or bother to research the issues. Their sympathy lies with so called democratically elected Japan and biased against so called authoritarian China. Their self professed neutrality is a sham cloaked with the fear factor of rising China. Although New York Times mostly follow the same path I do find their Chinese edition much more balanced with Chinese commentators and analysts. An additional factor is the liberal guilt on the use of atomic weapons in Japan and they do consider Japan to be a declining power mostly following U.S. than the challenge posed by China.

  8. denk
    September 22nd, 2012 at 21:22 | #8

    *Yet China would seem a very appropriate target for Muslim anger. The U.S. may have invaded Muslim countries, but for decades China has been brutally persecuting and repressing millions of its own Muslim minorities, such as the Uighars in northwest China.*


  9. aeiou
    September 22nd, 2012 at 22:14 | #9

    Funny thing about people like custer is he would excuse the lynching of their own ambassador in Libya while condoning the use of nukes against China because the internet is censored or some variety of liberal cognitive dissonance. He’s so fixated on his crusade against China that he can’t see past his own idealogical indoctrination. In short, he’s a moron, a useful idiot.

    He doesn’t seem to grasp the idea that America is in military pact with Japan, and required by law to protect its pet. So from the start, America has aligned itself against China; though America is smart enough to not publicly announce the fact so as to draw the ire of the Chinese public, but should there be war, the public will turn on Americans and Japanese just the same.

  10. aeiou
    September 22nd, 2012 at 22:50 | #10

    Lastly, his complete disregard of history and utter ignorance of Americas foreign policy notwithstanding — it’s as though he thinks in times of war, Americans wouldn’t turn against ethnic Chinese-Americans if not for nationalism within China. Again I’m completely floored by this moron.

  11. perspectivehere
    September 23rd, 2012 at 00:24 | #11

    This pretty much sums up Custer’s qualifications to opine on China.

  12. William
    September 23rd, 2012 at 02:13 | #12

    I think it’s worth pointing out a bit more context – Custer is speculating about what would happen if Locke had been injured or killed by the protesters. Sort of like another Benghazi, but one where anything that happens can be argued to be Them Communists’ fault.

    Next, like people do with creepy love letters, I can’t resist picking up the spelling mistakes:
    “these claims will be downed out” – these claims will be drowned out
    “but this will not sake the anger of the United States Congress” – but this will not slake the anger of the United States Congress
    “If it keeps allowing things to reach the brink of boiling point before pulling back, one of these times, it is going to be too late, and even though it wasn’t the government committing the crimes, the government will ultimately be left holding the ball. ” (mixed metaphor overload!) – If they keep allowing things to get near boiling point before stepping in and trying to cool things down, one of these times they are going to time it too late, and even though it isn’t the government committing the actual assaults, Zhongnanhai will be left shouldering the blame.

    OK, so he’s young, he’s spent some time in China (which can leave enormous impressions on people, of all sorts), and he’s continuing to comment on current affairs having left.

    Problem: Benghazi. There hasn’t been a huge anti-Libyan uproar in the US. OK, Benghazi was written off as a terrorist attack instead.
    Problem: criminal justice. The easy and immediate way to forestall most of the US domestic backlash is to arrest and try the people who actually carried out the assault / murder. You can’t argue much with that.
    Problem: his judgment of US public / political opinion is a bit flawed, unless you assume that the Chinese government effectively backs what happened with statements like “Locke had it coming to him” or “this is nothing compared to the US’ failure to return control of the Diaoyu islands to China”, which I can’t quite see happening. Pearl Harbor this is not.

    So not much left to say really, he’s writing about a very small possibility.

  13. September 23rd, 2012 at 06:56 | #13

    I think there is a bit of overreaction and misunderstanding here on both sides. A brief look at his blog shows that this C. Custer guy is one of those people that obviously buys into the “final victory” of western values.

    But he doesn’t appear to be as blatantly hypocritical as most other promoters of said values. For example, he is just as vehemently opposed to western scare-mongering and propaganda, as he is against what he perceives as Chinese propaganda:


    However, I will say that this guy is totally exaggerating the scenario about mobs attacking the US ambassador.

  14. Teacher in China
    September 23rd, 2012 at 08:15 | #14

    With all due respect, I think you have taken C. Custer’s post out of context.

    It was definitely exaggerated and perhaps he wandered into scaremongering territory, but it was done to serve a grander point that he was trying to make in conjunction with a previous post where he opined that these protests were originally state-sponsored; so, extrapolating the very real possibility that the attack on the U.S. Ambassador could have gone awry, he wanted to show exactly how badly the whole thing could have gone and how regrettable the results could have been; all due, in his opinion, to the decision of the government to let a volatile group of people vent against the Japanese.

    Furthermore, I’d like to point out to you that some of the language you use is dangerously disingenuous.

    1) Nowhere in the article did C. Custer “fantasize about Chinese-Americans living in fear”. The use of the word “fantasize” makes it seem like he was dreaming that it would happen and indeed wanted it to happen – there’s nothing in the article to support that, and indeed he even uses the phrase`”things will get ugly”, which suggests to me the very opposite – he does NOT want this to happen.

    2) The title, though, is the worst example. He was certainly not making any kind of threat. Again, he was extrapolating on a possibility using vivid language to make a point.

    In regards to what others have said about C. Custer above and in the comments, I would wager that you haven’t read his posts critically enough in their entirety. I have been following him on-and-off for a long time, and I have found him to be pretty fair in his treatment of all subject matter. He certainly does not fail to criticize American politics when it comes up, even though that it not the point of his blog at all (see the above story wherein he blatantly called members of his own government “idiots”). I think that everything he posts on there comes from a good place: he honestly just wants things to get better for China and China’s relationship with the outside world.

    Just my two cents.

  15. Black Pheonix
    September 23rd, 2012 at 09:25 | #15


    Speculating into the “very small possibility” seems opposite of what he wanted to convey:

    He wrote, “Of course, it’s possible that this will never happen. I’m not sure what the chances are.”

    Now, it seems he was actually suggesting that what he imagined is very possible.

    Of course, his entire premise is speculation and rumor mongering, starting with “the Chinese government planned it”.

    Of course, how can any sane person suggest that they can even predict the possibility of imagined sequences upon their own speculations upon speculations?

    Well, there you go, Rumor Mongerers like Chuckie take themselves out of the context of their own rationality, and imagine the worst possible for OTHER PEOPLE, i.e. ethnic Chinese in US.

    To me, that can ONLY be implied as a THREAT!

    Either that, or he’s merely acknowledging the Nationalistic Instinct of Americans to “sake” their anger by taking it out on perceived “traitors”.

  16. Black Pheonix
    September 23rd, 2012 at 09:30 | #16


    If Custer wished to have his posts taken “in context”, then he should provide sufficient “context” in his own posts.

    Since he’s apparently deviating from the sanity of context in his own posts, it’s only fair that we judge his words with the low level of context he wanted in his imaginary world.

    As I stated, SINCE Custer is speculating to what MIGHT happen if Locke was harmed, then he is obviously implying to the possibility of an ethnic pogrom against Chinese Americans (as part of the consequences).

    While Locke was not harmed, obviously that possibility didn’t happen.

    But what did happen? Custer IMPLIED a scenario of ethnic pogrom in US.

    So, we can judge from his own implications.

    Of all the possible scenarios, why would he imply this one?

  17. Teacher in China
    September 23rd, 2012 at 18:44 | #17

    @ Black Phoenix

    It’s up to you to read his post more carefully to see the context. He provided a link to the previous post in which he outlines his reasons for thinking that the government was behind the protests in the first place. He wanted to show that the same government would then be held responsible if things went in the worst possible way that they could.

    I think it’s belittling of his efforts to call them “rumor mongering” – he made a clear and coherent argument with lots of reasons to support it. You can disagree with it all you want, but it’s more than rumor mongering.

    In C. Custer’s mind, he is not speculating upon a speculation. He thinks that the government planned it all, period. That’s a fact in his mind. He is then speculating on what could have happened as a result from another fact – the attack on Locke’s car. Everyone is allowed to speculate on the result of facts without their sanity being questioned.

    There is no threat in his post, implied or otherwise. He is simply speculating upon facts. By the way, I think anyone American who is reading that ugly scenario cringes about what would happen to their life in that situation. No one wants to live in a country like that, not C.Custer, myself, not anyone I would think. So again I’ll state (as I did in my previous post that hasn’t appeared yet) that he wasn’t “fantasizing”, as the OP put it (that word suggests he wants it to happen), he was giving us all a dark vision of a future that would be hard to fix because of the possible outcome of the fact of Locke’s car being attacked.

    Please notify me if my posts are offensive, otherwise I’d appreciate it if you would put them up here for everyone to see. Thanks.

  18. Wahaha
    September 23rd, 2012 at 19:35 | #18

    the previous post in which he outlines his reasons for thinking that the government was behind the protests in the first place.


    Teacher in China,

    Will you elaborate how Chinese government was behind the protests ?

    As we all know, Chinese government now cant force people getting onto the street like 40 years ago. So, If “behind the protests” means that state-run media gave more coverage about Diaoyu Islands, doesn’t it also mean that “free” media has been behind all the protests in “free” world?

    For example, Zimmerman’s case, why suddenly, nobody care about it anymore? and it also indicates that rich-run “free” media has suppressed OWS, the only protests in last 20 years that aimed at the rich, not government?

    If so, why only “free” media can “have a hand behind protests” but government can’t?

  19. Wahaha
    September 23rd, 2012 at 19:48 | #19

    He wanted to show that the same government would then be held responsible if things went in the worst possible way that they could.


    May I ask who should be held responsible for the 1992 Los angles riot ?

    If media and journalists have misled people and caused serious damage to the country, should they beheld responsible?

    For example, since TV and now internet, “free” media has destroyed collective efforts in “free” world, are they held responsible?

  20. September 23rd, 2012 at 20:03 | #20

    @Teacher in China

    Just to emphasize what I said earlier, I think there is a lot of exaggeration on both sides here. I for one do not think Custer intends to “incite” violence, let alone pogroms, against ethnic Chinese in the US. And even if he was, there are plenty of people in the US (on & offline) inciting violence & hatred against all types of people all the time, doesn’t mean Custer can have any more rallying effect than any other nut job out there. While we’re on the subject of Custer, at first glance, I don’t even think Custer is blindly biased in favor of the West, despite his obvious adherence to traditional western ideological dogma.

    On the other hand, it does seem like his blog article consists largely of speculation built upon exaggerated speculation.

    Did he actually bother to see what happened to the US ambassador’s car? According to the story to which he linked in his blog post, about 50 demonstrators in Beijing “surrounded” Locke’s car in protest as it drove out of the embassy, and did “minor damage” before dispersing upon police intervention. Well what exactly is “minor damage”? Heck, if you want to get technical, paint scratches or dents can be considered “minor damage”, something as small as a key can cause “minor damage”. Realistically speaking, how much “danger” was Locke really in?

    As it turns out, a video of the incident was not that hard to find:


    Its quite clear that there was ample security presence near the embassy and the car (as there always is in the diplomatic districts regardless of what else is taking place), and that people threw nothing more than what appeared to be empty plastic soda bottles at it. The reason police did not act immediately to force the crowd to disperse was because they were NOT a violent crowd. Police had a reason to intervene only when someone physically put their hands on the car.

    If Custer wants to talk about worst case “what if” scenarios of Molotov cocktails & serious violence, he needs to look no further than the 2008 arson attack against the Chinese Consulate in San Francisco:


    In sum, while Custer is technically not inciting anything, the way he uses his “what if” scenarios to blow this incident FAR out of proportion remind me of the way Fox News uses questions as a means of insinuation and propaganda: “Was Obama educated by Muslim terrorists? When will death panels be convened? Oh we’re not saying these conspiracies are true, we’re just ‘asking questions’…”

  21. Wahaha
    September 23rd, 2012 at 20:21 | #21

    Teacher in China :
    I suggest you take it all up with C.Custer. They were his arguments, not mine.

    As he doesnt allow me to question him, so maybe you can kindly answer my questions ?

    Or do you have answers to my questions?

  22. Teacher in China
    September 23rd, 2012 at 20:23 | #22

    @Mister Unknown
    First, thank you for the intelligent and reasonable reply.
    Second, I partly agree with you in that I think he verged on scaremongering with his exaggeration; however, I still think it’s justifiable, in light of what his overall point was (that the government started something that could have spiralled out of control and led to serious consequences that would have drastically changed its relationship to the West). He was trying to provide a worst case scenario, and that’s all he was doing. Anytime you have a group of angry people together, especially people who in other places had been burning down buildings and attacking private property of citizens, there’s always a chance things can can suddenly go awry.
    Anyways, looks like we’ll have to agree to disagree. All I want to do is point out that I think there’s too much over-reaction to his post, and that I think the OP and some subsequent commenters aren’t being fair to C.Custer.

  23. Wahaha
    September 23rd, 2012 at 20:34 | #23

    I read his blog, I didnt see any evidence that govenrment sent hundreds of thousands of people onto street.

    so I ask you, on what basis do you believe him?

    If you believe him then you must believe “free” media manipulates people too, right ?

    Or are you brainwashed so badly that you lost common sense?

  24. pug_ster
    September 23rd, 2012 at 21:40 | #24

    @Teacher in China

    Umm, first of all, his link he ‘provided’ was his own. Which is here.


    Second, I would love to comment in his site, but he banned me from posting. His ‘reasoning’ of why these protests are state sponsored is reasoning from a 5 year old. He makes a argument, People from the Chinese protests. These Chinese works for the government. Therefore, these Chinese people gets paid by the government to protest. What kind of stupidity is that? Does he have any documentation that someone from the local government mandating people to protest.

    Another stupidity in his link is a picture of a supposed cop in some kind of truck with signs against the Japanese. I mean, first of all, why is he not on a police car or something? Second, how do we know that he is not doing this on his own time?

    Besides, the American government pays numbnuts like Liu Xiaobo to protest against the Chinese government, where’s the outrage in that?

  25. September 23rd, 2012 at 22:25 | #25

    C. Custer ranks low among my reading. Last time I read something he wrote, maybe 2 years ago…?

    Anyways, I accidentally came across this article by Peter Lee at Asia Times (I do read his writings more often). In it, he clearly thought Custer’s reasoning was superficial and way off…


  26. Zack
    September 23rd, 2012 at 23:37 | #26

    gotta love peter lee; always enjoy his articles

  27. Wahaha
    September 24th, 2012 at 04:08 | #27

    however, I still think it’s justifiable, in light of what his overall point was (that the government started something that could have spiralled out of control and led to serious consequences that would have drastically changed its relationship to the West).

    Please show me where I said that I believed him.

    Teacher in China, allow me to show you my reasoning :

    How did government “started” something ? There are only two ways : either (1) send people onto street, or (2) use their control of media to cover the issue intensively.

    Is there a third way? if not, it must be (2), logically, as (1) is impossible and Custer didnt provide any clue for (1).

    If you believe #2, AS YOU SAID IN YOUR POST, then comes my questions

    So, If “behind the protests” means that state-run media gave more coverage about Diaoyu Islands, doesn’t it also mean that “free” media has been behind all the protests in “free” world?

    What part of logic sounds too hard for you to understand?

  28. September 24th, 2012 at 06:54 | #28

    If the Chinese government has control over the protesters, it’s pretty stupid to send some to demonstrate outside of the American embassy. The US has maintained a rather healthy distance to Japan’s position on Diaoyu/Senkaku vis-a-vis PRC’s or ROC/Taiwan’s, to the chagrin of the Japanese. China’s strategy should be making it China vs. Japan; Japan’s strategy should be making it China vs. Japan/US. If you believe a good conspiracy theory, the protesters and Ai Weiwei-san may be backed some right-wing Japanese money.

    There are a few bloggers/commenters, e.g. Otto Kerner, FOARP, Justrecently, even Si, I would read what they have to say, though not go out of my way to read them. For many of the rest, among which Custer is one of them, I would skip once I see their names. The time you waste to wait for something useful, insightful and intelligent from them, is just not worthy in one’s limited life.

  29. September 24th, 2012 at 08:25 | #29

    @Teacher in China

    “Verged on” scaremongering? Uhh… NO, you don’t get to mince words like this. What he wrote *WAS* scaremongering, PERIOD. This is no different than Fox News’ tactic of selling gross exaggerations by “just asking questions”. In fact, he goes further than Fox News, by outlining a whole scenario of violence and death blown far out of proportion to what actually happened. I posted the video of the incident for all to see, there was CLEARLY ample security and no real danger to speak of for the ambassador.

    There is an “overreaction” to his post, because his post in and of itself is a GROSS overreaction.

  30. Black Pheonix
    September 25th, 2012 at 19:03 | #30

    Peter Lee at Asia Times repudiates Chuckie Custer’s article:


    “In the Western media a considerable, perhaps excessive, amount of time and energy has been spent denigrating the anti-Japanese demonstrations for their allegedly unspontaneous character. Chinageeks’ Charles Custer perhaps went the furthest, titling his post on the subject, “China’s Anti-Japan Riots Are State-Sponsored. Period.” [4] “

  31. Black Pheonix
    September 27th, 2012 at 17:55 | #31

    In all fairness, Chuckie Custer is just trying to worm his way back into this forum, (after he splashed his temper tantrum filled exit, promising never to come back, along with his exit from China).

    So, the more outrageous out of reality blogs he can do, the more insane public drama and accusations he can make with any thing to do with China, the more relevant he feels in his self-imposed exile in many forums.

    Well, come to think of it.

    Custer might have “planned it all”. (Just to worm his way back).

    Such a Drama Queen! 🙂

  32. Charles Liu
    September 27th, 2012 at 23:16 | #32

    Custer, you deserve to be ridiculed and ignored. If these protests are state sponsored (like the Pentagon’s Freedom Fest), would there be wanted poster and arrests?


  33. albinosprouts
    October 12th, 2012 at 18:27 | #33

    I don’t know why people even read his blog, the comments betray that his audience is a host of racist whites trying to aggrandize themselves. Living in China, they feel the shock of being a minority for the first time, their white privilege decays, they start to notice how large their noses are, how arrogant they act. Then they have nothing left but to attack thier host country. This happens amongst whites in Japan and Korea as well, they feel bitterness and defensiveness, knowing full well the crimes europeans have commited in that area of the world, and feeling not shame but aggression.

  34. Trisno
    December 10th, 2012 at 08:24 | #34

    Who the hell is this Custer guy?

Time limit is exhausted. Please reload the CAPTCHA.