Does war count as natural selection?

Does war count as natural selection?   (this article is fairly long by the way)

Like if one a huge group of people pressure another group of people into action because of the 1st groups’ collective stupidity…. does that still count?

This is a question that came to me as a result of living in China for a long time, studying Chinese, US & Australian strategy, and paying attention and reading between the lines of various news articles for international & domestic events; and also having an interest in anthropology.

We often think the standard definition of evolution fits only for animals, and that for we as humans, (the animals that managed to stand above the rest by creating tools), this evolution process doesn’t really apply.  However, I doubt this is really the case.

There’s a famous movie and theory called ‘idiocrasy’ by which – in the future, and even now the survival of the fittest is no longer true, and that it’s not the ‘fittest’ that procreate more and therefore pass on their genes, just more the ones that literally procreate more…that push on their genes.

I love this theory, because its honestly something you can see throughout the world.

Despite all of humanity’s advances in modern technology and medicine, we end up protecting everyone at once.  Even the stupidest of our society can pass on their genes even if they’ve had accidents that would normally take them out of the gene pool, due to advances in modern medicine.

And then even the smartest of us might not necessarily have the chance to pass on our genes.  All too often some of the most intelligent humans are socially awkward, possibly resulting in them not to be able to find a partner, settle down, and ultimately passing on their intelligent genes.

Yet, the ones that are either muscle bound, or natural born douchebags that manage to lie and cheat enough to find a partner, or… a combination of both these traits, manage to pass on their genes with ease.

Is the world not quickly coming to a state that we’re having proportionally more of these ‘fittest’  in terms of the animalistic definition of evolution where the strongest & ones that can procreate more, rather than the actual best/ intelligent (the ones that actual allow our society to continue going forward) are the ones that survive.

However, what is the case when it comes to war?

Can one government influence the majority of its population to a point where their collective mindset, and collective beliefs or maybe stupidity means that they manage to piss off other collective of people/ governments to the point where there is a war?

If the 1st collective group of people cannot see that their direction of  thought will cause conflict, and do not have enough resources or weapons, to weather the resulting war, then surely they are not the ‘fittest’, right?

Being able to develop tools is one of the main aspects that puts humans above that of animals, and a weapon is a tool just like any other.  A tool used to kill sure, but it is still development.  It can be used for defence or for attack and thus survival, and should be treated no differently.

Increasing levels of thinking, strategy and tactics used to ensure that you survive can be applied as tools for survival.  If 1 particular culture, government fails to provide this for the people of their country, then they are failing to give them the tools necessary for surviving.
If they enact failing strategies and opinions based on information which has been selectively chosen- stemming from a propaganda kind of way so that the government can remain in control of its people, yet this same education means that the people’s jaded opinion of the world comes at odds of maintaining peaceful existence with other countries, or other people outside of their own sphere….then this is quite simply a  disadvantage in the whole ‘survival of the fittest’ situation.

A government forcing their people to adopt thinking like this explained above could be noted as setting up their own people for eventual extermination.

Why?

Because if one group of people are not allowed to develop due to the restrictive thinking that has been placed on them for so many years, and a collective mindset of ethnocentricism has been instilled in them effectively meaning that, despite it might not being the case….especially given their selective, often reduced education levels that they as ‘one sphere of people’ are better than anyone else outside their sphere, and that they don’t need foreign help not interaction to better society as a whole, they are ultimately provocative to others outside their sphere.  This could mean that this sphere of people could effectively bring war upon themselves whilst wrongfully believing, through sincerely convincing themselves of this thought, that they can defend themselves properly and defeat those outside their circle.

The more 1 group of people become detached from the rest of society due to a belief that either they are better than others or that they need to crush others BECAUSE they are better than others and more people should join their world view, the more likely it is that those outside that sphere will form resistance and ultimately defend themselves against the perceived threat.

Think different societies, not just the Germans, throughout the ages defending themselves from the Jewish population that throughout history has segregated themselves from the rest of society rather than integrated whilst also amassing wealth due to the close connections and focuses of their culture, which through one way or another people believe it is because they see themselves as ‘the chosen people’.  This clash of worldviews ultimately creates conflict.
This difference in education and thoughts about their standing in the world, as well as a miscalculation many times on just how others outside their sphere (strategic & contingency thinking) coupled with a lack or preparedness of defence, (should those outside their sphere actually take action), means that those in that position have the chance of being wiped out from this process.

They, in this regard, are lacking the tools for survival, and therefore I think can quite reasonably be declared that they are not the ‘fittest’.

Don’t forget I’m inferring that the tools for survival, for humans at least have always and should always include intelligence- of course our greatest tool as humans, but this also generates other related tools such as weapons and defence building, relationship building, strategic thinking, contingency planning, which may lead to integration and compromise with those outside your sphere but which definitely doesn’t translate to ethnocentricism for which the Germans were obviously guilty of…and if you’ve followed my line of thought here, the Chinese is most definitely a modern example of.

Now that being said, the Chinese….not the masses, because anyone that has ever lived in China has a mountain of evidence to prove against that, but certain government members definitely has the strategic thinking to provide enough of an increasing barrier to protect against this from happening just yet.

That being said, for what I mentioned about education, mis-information, propaganda etc., the Chinese regime is definitely aligning itself with those points outlined above. Its historical culture and modern culture, emphasised through Chinese Communist Party government propaganda certainly create a mindset of ethnocentricism, distrust of foreigners, un-integration and all manner of things that can potentially lead to conflict.

The recent announcements of the government censoring education even more to ‘remove western values’ from higher education, despite the fact that many western values are the same as Chinese values, and that totally removing supposed ‘western values’ would technically mean removing logical thinking, best practices, family values, human rights, moral behaviour etc.,  would be incredibly detrimental to the education of the Chinese people.

These wishes of the government may be generated from wanting to keep the masses in line, and to remain in power themselves by effectively controlling their people in the only way they seem to know how, but ultimately it creates a society that is at odds with the rest of the world.  It creates resentment of others and matched with a perception that they are better than anyone else simply because they are Chinese, means there’s a chance that active showing of resentment is a real possibility.

The Chinese government will often come up with great ideas to thrust the economy forward.  They need to keep up the growth of the economy because they don’t seem to be providing much else to their people, and this is one of the only ways that they can maintain power-  If people have better standards of living, then it’s a sign of good governance.
Of course if this comes by the way of increased control and less freedom, then the growth of the economy has to be always better than other benefits that the government could provide.

One great idea that Xi Jinping announced is that they would increase ingenuity、 creative thinking among the people, and increase entrepreaunialship within the economy, and that this should lead to generation of new industry … and of course with a healthy dose of protectionism (which almost always pisses off those that have already developed such related businesses and whilst have been promised trade with china, have now been shut-out because of a government change of heart) ; it meant that China could reclaim or at least widen its world money generating potential.

It should be obvious to most, that centuries of ethnocentricism, mis-information, government propaganda, and an education system that is aimed at not teaching ‘why’ and churning out people that are all equal, and easily controlled…because they are simply not thinking enough… that this cannot be turned around by the government by simply clicking their fingers stating ‘let’s be entrepreneurial now’.
The same government that forced this level of basic/ restrictive thinking in the first place.

So are they going to have the greatest weapons to protect themselves from their own eventual stupidty?   Stupidity which as defined in detail above results from self-segregation, ethnocentric behaviour, and provocation which ultimately leads to them bring war, or at least conflict upon themselves?

The simple answer would be no. , They wouldn’t have the inguinuity to create the defence needed to protect themselves from their own stupidity.  And therefore in the definition of evolution….would not be the ‘fittest’.

Now there’s a few of you that know, the Chinese…and especially the Chinese government are pretty awesome at ‘reverse engineering’ (otherwise known plainly as copying…or ‘stealing shit’).  Although the concept is quite self-explantory, its essentially stealing the work of those that are smarter than you, and have created a product that is better than one of your own people could have come up with; then taking it apart and copying it from the ground up.
Of course from there, once you know how it works, and potentially why it works…you can add to it, modify it and essentially make it yours.

The Chinese government have been doing this for years, it is government directed, military implemented and corporate benefitted.

It’s been well documented in journal articles and intense research for years, however it rarely makes its way to the normal public understanding/ realisation.  That being said, ‘China un-censored’ [link] did a video article about this that can more or less bring you up to scratch.  Whilst not complete in its explanation, it is reasonably good at explaining what is happening, but not why.
They [the Chinese government] can do this, because in their minds they have convinced themselves that they are constantly at war.  An ethnocentric society that views everyone else as against them can of course very easily come to this conclusion.
This kind of thinking is obviously at odds with the fact that they believe they are the smartest, because if they really were the smartest they would come up with these ideas and products themselves.  And their ‘ingenuity’ could easily facilitate this, however clearly this is bullshit because they have gone for the stealing route instead.

The corporate, yet government sponsored espionage / stealing route is clear to cause conflict and tension from those that actually created the product, investing millions of dollars in the first place.

One thing that the Chinese government is ahead of the curve at, which is of course is in direct relation to this, is computer hacking and computer related espionage.

The USA keeps complaining about this, but can do little about it, because THEY believe they are not at war.  War rules are different than that of non-war times, you can essentially do anything to ensure your survival.  Of course this is not what western governments say, yet it IS what actually happens whether it is right or wrong, it should be stressed this IS what actually happens.

China is winning this current war, because essentially they are the only ones that are actually attacking.  The other side doesn’t even know it is at war yet.
But what happens when the other side realises that it IS at war?   Their, by which I mean the USA of course, military or fighting advantage is in ‘traditional’ war.  Whereas the Chinese strength is in asymmetric and non-traditional war, long term strategic planning…etc. Clearly something which the USA government has not been so strong in the last few decades.

Strategic thinking denotes that one should only enter a war knowing that they have a good potential at being able to win it.  Especially given their tools on hand.

Yet what happens, as stated above when one group of people through their own stupidity, force a war to take place due to provocation etc.?   Well the otherside, can always find ways to turn an asymmetric war into a traditional one.

How?  Through provocation or issues the other side is sensitive to.

Where the Chinese side is smart however, is foreign policy, and whilst Chinese might have proved themselves as not being able to integrate so well… the integration that HAS taken place has allowed foreign companies to establish a presence within Chinese borders, and Chinese companies to take stakes in foreign countries, meaning effectively a traditional war is difficult to fight as tactics like carpet bombing can affect your own countries assets because you could be bombing your own side.

Thus, strategic infiltration is needed, …something which the Chinese government is and has been undertaking for quite some time already.  Slow but steady provocation has been conducted to effectively test the waters of how the other side will react, such as is the case with the South China Sea, and island-building in contested waters.
So far, effectively nothing has happened, and even though international courts and tribunals have found that what China is doing is illegal by international rules, the same rules which their government also agreed to; this doesn’t actually result to anything because the Chinese government refuse to take heed, and have realised that whilst there may be a ruling; the clout that they have for control in the world economy means that by denying one country something due to a stance they may take on one issue to selling rights/ economic rights within China, they can effectively continue to do whatever they want.

That being said, whilst the government may have control over this foreign policy side of things and may be effectively winning the one sided war that they are waging, they are slowly creating a domestic atmosphere which is also increasingly at odds with the international community.  Which if continues may create a situation that whilst a certain amount (of the international businesses) might remain due to economic potential, it can also lead to a withdrawal or un-integration from the Chinese.  Thus coupled with increased provocation from their domestic population and Chinese actors abroad could lead for more chances of traditional war as the worry of damaging one’s own assets decrease.

Strategically the USA has already missed its opportunity for a traditional war with China, it’s resources are being wasted chasing expensive wars, because expensive wars are the ones that generate profit for the American Hamiltonian elites (see article) ; the ones that are invested in keeping the traditional war industry going.
Computer hacking, drones, & strategic espionage operations are relatively cheap compared to building and manning of aircraft carriers; or large infrastructure construction projects such as missile defence domes.  Thus meaning that the USA’s biggest stupidity and provocation is the greed that comes from monetary expansion, and short-term gains, by allowing these elitists to remain in power, and the common people not realising what is actually happening and how their country is actually run.  The control of any one country’s people done by the need to stay in power to create wealth for these leaders and elites as showcased by both China and the USA means that both are likely to bring war upon themselves.

The USA and China (in terms of it’s governments and the control and shaping of their own societies) seem to be both leading their people to the stupidity that will lead to provocation, and eventually to war.
If they’ve both managed to do this, then I think it’s reasonable to say that either side could be thinning out the herd with humanities latest application of ‘survival of the fittest’  and evolution will prove to be ever present and applicable even in the human race.

Link

脑洞很大

Dangerous Foreign Love article

ABC china warns women of foreign spies in dangerous love comic

China’s first annual National Security Education Day, see both links

Hahahah , there’s been some recent commenting about this online from a lot of foreigners, and from some Chinese too, but I feel they’re not really addressing some of the key issues here.

First read the article, and then …what do you find strange about the way the Chinese depict themselves?

1st scene, there are apparently 2 Chinese girls speaking. (This is how the government thinks Chinese girls look like)   Basically exactly like foreigners.

I mean yes, they’re speaking Chinese, but 1 has red hair and the other has brown hair…. I’m pretty sure everyone in China has Black hair, so either these are the most rare of Chinese girls, have dyed their hair (maybe because they’re not proud of their Chinese heritage) or…are actually foreigners. typical chinese girls
Also both these girls have large eyes. … mmm even Chinese people know that’s not a common trait.
To be fair its also how Japanese people portray people in their cartoons… maybe the Chinese gov. are just big fans of Japanese culture and so of gone with the same depiction?

The first thing uttered is “今天有个外国朋友组织的聚会,你不是要提高外语水平吗?跟我一起去参加吧。

And the translation from the article is pretty much correct, but it leaves out the fact that if a person says ‘foreign friend’ it would mean that it’s a Chinese person saying it, because foreigners here would just say friend.
So the implication is that these are indeed 2 Chinese girls speaking.

Scene 2, David (the foreigner)… speaking perfect Chinese, welcomes them to the party.

As we now know hair colour and waviness is nothing to go by…because apparently these are perfectly normal Chinese traits, the only way you can tell that David is a foreigner is that he has a big nose. david the obvious foreigner
Obviously all foreigners have big noses.

Oh and he is wearing glasses.

Traditionally though, isn’t it generally Asian people that wear glasses?
So either the glasses signify that he is meant to be intelligent, or the Chinese gov. thinks that foreigners are blind, because one of the guys at the table could actually pass off for being Chinese, but he is not wearing glasses, so what does this infer?

Oh and ‘naturally brown haired’ Chinese girl, weren’t you there to practice your ‘Foreigner language’ skills.
You seem to be speaking an awful lot of Chinese… what are you doing?

 

In the translation, it doesn’t even specify what foreign language it is… its’ just generalised…’foreign language’.
Brilliant.
Because the rest of the depictions are completely generalised right? Like Chinese girls with red hair and brown wavy hair….yeah sure.

This kind of cartoon or ‘educational awareness propaganda’, it’s one of these things that you look at and a thousand thoughts pop into your head at once, there’s too much to deconstruct, you’re just left staring at the poster shaking your head as you quietly have a brain aneurysm and a small trickle of blood dribbles from your nose.

Apparently Xiao Li is the typical gov employee, and there’s enough of a problem that people need to be told this information en masse… which means that the training to keep secrets actually secret is not good enough…… en masse.

Just how naïve is this girl?
Plus as a side note… isn’t she getting fatter in the pictures?
When she’s sitting on the bench …she’s clearly slightly fatter right?

Or… is this a ploy by gov officials to coax foreign potential spies into thinking that Chinese state employees are all that naïve, and then the Ch. Gov. can catch foreign spies more easily?

Oooh hoooo…clever…    haha I think perhaps we’re jumping ahead of ourselves.

OFFICER: “You show a very shallow understanding of secrecy for a State employee.”

Hahahah and who’s fault do you think that is?

Link

The politics of motorbikes in China

北京要开始“禁摩限电”新政策了! [article]

Beijing to start ‘Prohibiting motorbikes & limiting electric scooters new policy!’

Why?

This entire article is about electric scooters breaking the rules, and generally being the dickbags that they are, and in fact the one scene in which they show a motorbike rider, he is sitting patiently at the lights waiting for it to turn green.

In this article basically they say that in Shenzhen they’ve just introduced a law that will fine people driving scooters when they break a traffic law.

From which you’re left thinking… This wasn’t being done before?

And then they have the audacity to put motorbike riders and electric scooter drivers into the same basket.  Oh yeah they’re all bad.

Why is the title ‘Prohibit motorcycles, and limit electric scooters’?

If they show the video of all the electric scooters breaking all the traffic rules, and motorbikes doing nothing of the kind, why crucify motorbike riders?

And more to the point, why make the penalty for driving a motorbike greater than the scooter if they’re not the ones doing anything wrong.

Surely that’s retarded right??

“Look at all these scooters… all these bastards… I know what we’ll do…I know what the solution is, we’ll ban motorbikes”   “and we’ll limit scooters”

看!那些电动车都不遵守交通规则,所以我们应该禁止摩托车!

看!空气污染这么严重, 所以我们应该禁止飞机!

“Look the air is full of pollution. I know what we’ll do, we’ll ban aeroplanes.”

The reasoning behind these 2 sentences honestly uses about the same logic.

Also how about the police just do their damn jobs in the first place and enforce the laws that they already have?

You don’t have to make a new law, if you make a new law and that one is not enforced then what do you think that is going to achieve?

By the way you can restrict motorbikes quite easily but not so much electric scooters.

Motorbikes need petrol, if you make it necessary for all petrol stations to check for drivers licenses then for those that don’t have them… (that have not gone through the proper procedures to be able to drive a motorbike), then they won’t be able to get petrol, and then they can’t drive.

I realise it’s not going to stop everyone, but it’s a 70% kind of thing. Because its then up to the petrol stations to enforce this. But somehow in this crazy world that we call China I somehow believe petrol station attendants can enforce the regulations better than police can.

But for scooters…what are you going to do? Go into people’s houses and ask people for their license as they’re recharging their batteries?  No.. you can’t do that.

I have heard there’s such thing as a ‘Beijing traffic safety certificate’ (北京交通安全证)that electric scooter drivers are supposed to have, but how are you going to enforce this?
I heard it when I was studying for my motorbike transference license, when I was at the Department of Transport & Licensing in Beijing asking all the necessary questions of what was needed.

But the fact that no one else has heard of it kind of shows how much this decent enough policy was enacted.

So what are they planning in Beijing then?

10 major roads are going to be restricted, mainly Changan avenue though… look that one up people, you know its significant for a reason but you won’t know why until you look it up.  (the one that goes past Tiananmen Square)

And …and this is the big one, there will be a 20 rmb fine for those people that are caught not obeying the rules.

20 rmb you say?  Holy shit, well that changes everything.
[Oh, for my Chinese friends, that’s sarcastic…. 我讽刺说啊]

That’s utterly ridiculous.

Let me just tell you that this kind of logical thinking (or rather lack of logical thinking)… to see a situation like this and then just ‘apply a new law because that will fix everything’  is not how Chinese people in general think. This is a gov. mandated thing, and most likely as well it’s a reporter trying to make a name for herself. While she only caught proof of electric scooters breaking the law, as the video shows, unfortunately as the news is also the mouthpiece of the gov. she also has to reflect their broader policy. Ie. ‘We don’t like motorbikes. ’

Why?  I haven’t found a reason to that yet.    Maybe some member has a vendetta against motorcycles.

But anyway this is the Chinese conversation I had with a Chinese friend after reading this article. I apologise for my Chinese, sometimes its not always awesome.

我= Me  她= her

我:This is more against scooters right? Because in the one 镜头你能看到一个真的摩托车,他在红绿灯等变绿灯。我觉得只有电动车的问题不是摩托车
她:对呀,骑摩托车的人都有驾照,那些骑电动车的就不一定了 但是我不太明白,那个文章里面只说了电动车的问题,没有提摩托车,但是为什么标题说“禁摩限电”?
但是我觉得禁止电动车不对,有的人买不起车,骑自行车又太远,他们只能骑电动车。买得起汽车谁愿意骑电动车啊!
不能因为电动车不遵守交通规则就不让骑电动车,应该让骑电动车的人考电动车驾照,有了驾照才可以买电动车。
政府的工作是加强管理,不能一出问题就禁止
我:对,我完全同意,除了一个方面。不一定所有摩托车有驾照。除非你fangce 说 unless you said this sarcastically
她:不是啊,我说骑摩托车的人都有驾照,骑电动车的人不一定都有
我:还有对,我不知道为什么他们只想禁止人骑电动车,as you say, 不是电动车是这样的人
她:对,不是电动车的问题,是人的问题

(I might have said I know some people that don’t have their Chinese motorbike license, so not ALL motorbike drivers have their license)
她:好吧[Sweat] “骑摩托车的人应该都有驾照”,重点是应该
我:我听说电动车应该已经考了一个交通安全证,但是对这个没有人执法这个规则
对,应该 这是关键词
但是为了一个摩托车他们会…. (and then speaking about the ability to enforce a motorbike through filling up with petrol, but for a electric scooter you can’t do this)

她:交通安全证 可能是一个好方法,但是执行起来可能有点困难,就像你说的,他们不需要加油,没有人能监督他们。 但是如果卖电动车的人跟买车的人要驾照或者交通安全证,可能会好一点儿,就行药店卖的处方药一样
但是也可能有的人有驾照,然后他就帮别人买电动车
或者,谁买的电动车,就登记谁的名字,以后如果出了事故,就让这个人赔
我:但是应该跟摩托车一样,如果你 break the law, 犯规很大
她:对,加大对电动车违法交通规则的惩处力度
我:Or…. or…. 或者警察可以开始做他们的工作,就执法现在的交通规则。我们不需要一个新的 规则,如果执法现在的规则就行。
因为如果他们说,OK现在我们发了新的规则但是也没有执法,终于是这样的问题

她: “ 因为如果他们说,OK,现在我们发布了新的规则,但是还是没有执法,那问题还是一样的。 ” she is correcting me to make my Chinese more awesome

 

I hear this countless times by the way, “oh I don’t like politics, I’m not really that interested in it”

Do… you not understand what the word ‘politics’ means?

Its important because its about how the country that you live in is governed, what rules are made, and how these rules will affect your life.

I think that’s pretty important.

And pretty damn easy to take an interest in.

A stupid motorbike rule, policemen not doing their jobs, laws not being enforced because it creates confusion and somehow the people that run the country like it that way, retarded new laws being made….this is all politics!

Not interested in politics? Don’t understand it?  You can understand this right? You’re angry at this right?  You’re already well on your way to getting involved in politics.

Hooray!

开灯!

The one day that I HAD to drive to work last week, was the one day that it snowed in the whole work week and it snowed heavily.  The roads were dangerous because of the snow, it wasn’t completely snowed over, but it was slippery enough, but the real problem was that because it was snowing so much it was covering up the visor of my helmet so quickly that I couldn’t brush it off fast enough.  Adding to the fact that I couldn’t see so well was that it’s Beijing and of course its polluted and snowing the sky was a mix of grey-white, and many cars despite the fact that visibility is as low as it could be many cars didn’t have their lights on. I hate it when cars don’t drive with their lights on, which in China can be pretty much all the time, regardless of the situation.

Now this is nothing so new in China because technically the government says it’s illegal to drive with your lights on during the day, even for motorbikes, and as I assume logic would mean this excludes  exceptional circumstances…who knows what this could be. (pollution, raining, snow/ dust storm, government induced thunderstorm to wash away the pollution)  Either way people don’t really follow every rule that the government sets, they usually do whatever the hell they want, which means that they’re not using their lights simply because of their own reasons.

Their own idiotic reasons of course.

What they’re actually thinking of course, is ‘well I don’t need my lights to see them, because I can see them already’
And you know why you can see them?
Because they have their damn lights on!
And you know why people are going to crash into you?
Because you don’t have your lights on, and we can’t bloody see you.
This is probably the reason why these very same people never indicate when they turn corners.
‘I don’t need them, because I can see what I’m doing’

Yeah but that’s not the point!
The point is that other people can see you so that they know how to act around you

Bloody morons.

This makes me think, if we know how drivers think …or rather don’t think, what is the government thinking when they say you can’t drive with your lights on?
Are they trying to get people into accidents?

….with Chinese characteristics

If ‘Socialism with Chinese characteristics’ is essentially Capitalism, but the CCP doesn’t want it to be referred to as ‘Capitalism’, because that would mean admitting they were wrong beforehand.  (and it IS Capitalism- proof of such can be found knowing that Deng Xiaoping took a trip to America in the 1970’s to learn ‘new concepts for growth’. This can be found on the documentary ‘China- A Century of Revolution 1976-2011’ available on youtube)

Therefore they’ve added ‘with Chinese characteristics to their original plan of ‘Socialism’ , which now essentially means Capitalism…which therefore …clearly doesn’t mean Socialism any more.
Words have definitions, words have exact definitions, and adding 2 more words onto the end of another word isn’t how you change the definition of the original word, you’ve created an idea yes, but you haven’t changed the word. Instead they are mis-representing the original word.

Same as democracy, the word democracy has an exact definition, that’s the magic of the English language, we don’t have 1 word to express many different concepts, we have many words to express many subtle differences between concepts. The fact that the CCP has interpreted the word democracy to mean something that is beneficial to them, actually is not correct. Words can be interpreted differently by the connotations associated to them, but the underlying exact definition will always remain intact. One could argue that the Chinese translation of democracy is different, but the fact is, is that if the definition of the word is not exactly the same as ours, then the word is NOT the same, and either they do not have that word in their language, or they do not have that concept in their culture. It’s as simple as that.

So when writers talk about ‘Is China approaching democracy?’
It is OUR definition of democracy, because it is our word. The CCP might argue that they are already Democratic because it is their interpretation, that counts.  But this is not true.

So when the CCP states that they are on the road to democracy, it is more to appease international actors than speaking the truth. If they can define any word however they want then they can effectively claim anything.
If ‘harmonious uprising’ actually means that they will reclaim all former territories and provoke others into taking military action rather than initiating it themselves, then that’s what will happen.  However the CCP stating that that’s what they are working towards because THEY have chosen to define the word differently …well it’s not actually a real accomplishment for China in the eyes of the world.

Image

the economist magazine…

I was at Jenny Lou’s (A foreign goods store, that usually only foreigners shop at, or wealthy Chinese trying out Western goods)   because it is one of the few places that you can buy ‘The Economist’ magazine easily.

There were a few articles about China that i thought looked interesting. One even about the West and its hypocracies… this is something i wanted to read.

And this is what i found when i bought the magazine…  all wrapped up in it’s plastic cover.

I was obviously looking forward to reading the articles ‘Merry Mao-mas!’ – pg 33
‘Court Orders’ – pg 34, &
‘The West and its hypocrisies’ – pg 35

economist1economist2

– Cool pages 33-35 have been rather obviously just torn out.
Awesome!

That’s retarded, here’s why:
1. the kind of people that read the economist are usually well educated, sceptical and having a critical mind capable of logically & rationally analysing an article, whoever it comes from, china daily, Chinese news, the economist, they are the kind of people who will probably check information they think may be untrue. Therefore it is highly likely that propaganda towards the party they already know it to be embellished or some of the time, just not true…such as is the case with mao.
the level of education should be even more apparent given the fact that the economist is published in english
2. these people, that can afford 75 元 for a magazine probably have access to a VPN anyway, and so if they want can access such information

this allows us to draw 2 conclusions, 1. the government thinks that those with a VPN will not actively search for such information because they believe their state education has already provided the truth about mao and other china related issues, and therefore they do not want these people, no matter how wealthy or apparently smart they may be, to stumble upon this by accident, and accidently learn the truth.
or even if its other people’s opinions , it shows they only want their own opinion to shine through…..which leads me to the 2nd point
2. it gives the impression that the government is either paranoid…  that they would risk doing such a thing to prevent these very few people from seeing it, even going against this actions implied stupidity…as it is not the right target audience to be doing it to

in the end, what it has really done has made foreigners like myself pissed off that they cant read an article that they wanted to read about… how many chinese do i influence about what i think really happens? (i can’t even speak chinese fluently ) guesses? no one? ….shit all   that’s how many.

All they’ve really done is manage to piss me off.
If that was your intention ch. gov… fucking well done. It’s a win for you.