A Washington-based human rights organization says that, overall, press freedom around the world stopped declining in 2011. But while there are positive changes in some countries, the overall picture is not too bright. Last year, less than 15 percent of the world’s population had access to a free press.
The title of that news is:
So much for my appetite. And I started to drink more water:
For the first time in eight years, the negative trend that we’ve seen with the declines in freedom of expression around the world was staid and we actually saw some slight uptick and improvement, in large part due to gains in the Middle East,” said Radsch. “Libya, Tunisia, Egypt all went from ‘not free’ to ‘partly free,’ which was a pretty momentous change, and we also had countries like Burma that came out from under incredibly oppressive political rule
That’d be enough to make my stomach sick. Thanks, VOA.
Why I appear to be such a hateful and shameless jackass? Because I am really bigoted. I am just disgusted at how leftists disguised their indoctrination as “free press”. Hey fine for me if you are honest to admit 14.5% of the people are still not subject to our hypnosis with “our belief of dream“. But calling that piece of crap full of farce, gimmicks, useless sensational dabbling as free press? I’d have more respect for hard-core Islamic drilling. At least they didn’t put up with so much drama and claptrap to claim their superiority.
Off the rant, let’s take a look at who the hell wrote this piece of crap in the first place. I just can’t take it serious. The whole fuzz was set up by a Washington-based human rights organization, Freedom House in their freedom of expression campaign. Please, that’s what we need, another Washinton-based
USG-NGO. In its wiki page: “As of 2010, US federal government grants accounted for most of Freedom House’s funding”, not to mention the top levels are all associated with the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, the right-on Ministry of Truth (1984 joke if you didn’t get it). And what about the thought police? Well, that piece of news offered a damn big picture of her. The picture says it all. You could find her name in that news. A perfect candidate of an agonized young white woman who looks unfit to get laid and turns to be a feminist freedom fighter. She can’t even be counted as a hipster with that extra pounds of hers. Yikes, I am gonna skip my breakfast.
Darwin evolution tells us organisms evolve because of natural selection as to better adapt the living environment. That explains why giraffe has long neck, lion has sharp teeth, and white peppered moth turned black under soot pollution in the industrial England. However, the evolution of our intelligence does not really comply with the Darwin evolution theory. Contrary to the evolution principle, the evolution of humans (since the early hominid species) has always been driven to dissociate ourselves from the nature. The emergence and development of our intelligence allows us to walk out of the forest and create an artificial environment that would fit our own nature. Looking backwards into the development of human civilization, the use of tools for hunting, the invention of animal husbandry, agriculture, the emergence of the urbanized settlement, the structure of polity, industrial revolution, electronics etc, are the indisputable footsteps we left along this human evolution path. Following this logic, I dare to hypothesize that the ultimate objective of human civilization would be one abstract sentence: to dissociate ourselves from the given nature.
Thinking a step further, this seems also to be observed in the modern social mentality as well. I have always said that leftism, an appendix of modern surplus productivity, stem from the very idea that humans ought to be and act god-alike. Thou shalt love others just as much as yourself. Despite the myth about the origin of leftism (with several disputing theories), it is unanimously agreed that leftism tends to associate more with the intelligentsia with extremely high intelligence. While leftism itself has lots of incurable defects and I am sure there are noticed by the smart leftists, its core supporters (really smart people) appear to be rather stubborn in believing there are no other alternatives that would keep up with the advancement of our civilization.
What accounts for the advancement of the civilization anyway? Science and technology? As if the answer is that simple as all science and technology are neutral to our social beings… In my opinion, egalitarianism, that’s what the left intellectuals are really aiming for. Leftists think our achievement in science and technology has reached a milestone where the pursuit of a pure egalitarian artificial world starts possible. You see there are lots of facts that need numerous tests to confirm their existence in our realm. But it wouldn’t make any sense to look for even a slight degree of egalitarianism in this sensory world. In fact the pursuit of egalitarianism, a specious claptrap, has been destined to fail since the very beginning when this idea was nurtured 200 years ago, for it just simply goes against literally every empirical axioms we witness in the nature. Ignore the natural diversity, bell curves, and individual variations to guide our actions, and the only result is failure, for we don’t have the science and technology yet to make all individuals, all races, all species the same. This is THE perfect example of mankind’s desire to dissociate ourselves from the given universe.
Burrowing into deeper analysis and specific illustrations, egalitarian perspectives regarding the environment and the nature is best interpreted as gaiaism. For instance, terms such as preservation, conservation, and mitigation etc. have deluged the mass media in recent years. The hegemonic tone has never ebbed since the day they were created in the show business. But why do we want to preserve the nature? Why do we want to mitigate the climate change? Why do we want to protect the endangered species? Of course, there are so many conspicuous explanations that emphasize on the importance of “co-existence” , “ sustainability”, “rights to live” etc. Modern gaiaism has long jumped out of the spectrum of mere environmental problem control. In most western countries people’s livelihood are no longer susceptible under the compromising environmental conditions. Modern gaiaism is all about “value” and “lifestyle”. Beyond all those eloquent apologies, the true interpretation of this recent environmental fad is rather embedded in our own brains: the desire to dissociate from the nature. “We are transcended creatures with our artificial realms and thus we shall do everything we could to leave the old place the way it was, undisturbed and absolutely harmonious.” Therefore some advocates to stop slaughtering animals, some advocates stop pumping the fossil fuels, and some advocates even stop the modern technology for it disrupts the rhythm of the earth…
Western elites came up with the ideas and ensure that most people are well drilled to feel the same way. This luxurious emotion would be magnified manifold before a kid even learns to see the real cruelty of the world. That you think you care about African starving babies is nothing more than a sheer result of repetitious drills from the hypnosis organ. Nevertheless, this all may have worked perfectly fine, if our science and technology drive didn’t stagnate for the past half century. I have no problem with leaving in a real Brave New World where people just fool ourselves to death. At least that’d be a system that works. But once again our reality could not be offset by our intelligence yet, and worst of all, we are still insolently blind to the dire consequences that are about to ravage our incoherent civilization.
As far as I concern our human evolution has entered a dead end. The only way out would be a regrouping after the collapse of what has been built up for the past 50 or even 100 years and consciously refrain us from turning the divine thirst of mankind into a dead cult of leftism. For all I know, that window of opportunity is accumulating its momentum as we speak.
Before I start pointing fingers at what is happening now in Egypt, Libya, and Tunisia, I would like to remind everyone there’s already an appalling example in the same region: Iraq. Regardless of the strong economic incentives to intervene in Iraq, the biggest legitimate excuse was to liberate the Iraqis free of Saddam’s tyranny. Now people are freed, Saddam was executed, what happened to Iraqis now? (ferocious laughter here) At least we could say the presence of US force merely sustains a paper-thin secular government. Nobody knows how messy it would become after the withdrawal of US troops here in the ancient land of Mesopotamia.
Shifting back to current waves of so-called “Arab Spring”. As far as I could see, it is not about democracy, freedom, or human rights. Instead, it is the sheer consequence of the uncontrolled inbreeding within every Arab clan. Simple, the babies keep popping out in an exponential level, whereas the local economy gets shittier and shittier day by day. Look at the massive percentage of people under 25 in those Arab countries (including Tunisia, albeit having the most rational birth rate), it is no surprise to see that it is just a matter of time when the shit hits the fan. Babies grow up to be agonizing unemployed rabbles, how would they not go on the street and demand changes? Meanwhile, Arabs are far from being enlightened to know what democracy means, and there goes the soft political absorption of public unrest. With average inbred IQ level, lazy economic status, low education level (but Koran education), bursting population, drastic social rioting is then the most likely to erupt at any time.
So when the massive excessive youngsters’ riot finally broke out in the Arab world, it only leaves two scenarios in the society: either the incumbent ruling class miraculously tame the angry youths (this is what Syria, Yemen, Algeria, Bahrain, Saudi, Jordan, and Morocco are trying), or the rabbles grow into a momentum that would rumble the current polity (this is what happens in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya). However, in either scenario the fundamental root of this social unrest would not be addressed and problems would eventually spread to Europe because of its proximity and economic attractiveness to those regions. Of course, the latter option would make the whole process much faster, like it or not. This is what we have witnessed as we speak in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya.
In the meantime, it is infuriating to see how the Western political elites are responding to such change in the region. It is really not difficult to figure out the causes and effects of this massive social upraising in the Arab world, yet decision-makers decided to appease the leftists’ touching lines and follow their guts and hearts in this one, once again. One thing leads to another. The next thing we know Western leaders back-stabbed their traditional dictator allies like Ben-Ali, Mubarak, and even Gaddafi who turned pro-west in the last decade of his regime. In Tunisia and Egypt there are strong local military presence; so Western leaders only turned their ugly faces to the rioters. In Libya, there isn’t even a common ground for a sense of nationhood; so NATO bombed every possible targets, armed and trained the rebels. Anyway, all these actions now seem to serve one mega sacred purpose: to shed the light of western liberalism in the Arab world.
It is indeed a very noble thought, except that reality does not revolve around some noble dreams. When the plans are completely detached to the reality, we call it nothing but a phony sham. The cornerstone that goes against Western egalitarianism in those places is their strong affiliation to Islam, which has its own detailed description of how everything should work out in a Muslim society (without the presence of an iron secular ruling elites). Evidence? Look at the so-called first legitimate democratic election in the Arab world: Tunisian Islamist party claims election victory, set to dominate writing of new constitution. It is widely recognized that Tunisia is the most modernized and secular-minded Arab state in the region, yet this happens. I have predicted such trend long before the election was held, just did not foresee it’d come so easily. Similar flows would be soon expected in Egypt and Libya, with much stronger momentum.
In the end, the demographic bombs are not defused at all. Islamism is on the rise. More excessive young Muslims would flock to Europe and colonize the ageing population there. For all we know, western ideologies are no longer appealing to the Arabs. The age when they rushed to wear suits and speak English has long gone with the wind. Population bomb + revitalization of Islamism, with the catalysis of western leftism, it’s a picture of one million raving fists swinging in the air. Let’s give it 50 years to happen.
This is extremely sad, for France and for Europe.
This political correctness somehow reminds me of the Chinese history high school textbook in which Genghis Khan was portrayed as “Chinese hero”, a savage who vowed to tear down all Chinese civilization and graze sheep in China, or the removal of Yue Fei as national hero, as he was fighting not against the barbarian but “Chinese” as well…
Stereotype, most of them, are able to stand the test of time. The basic contention here is: the validation of stereotype is like the accuracy of the stereotype itself, 8 out of 10 times in your personal experience those stereotypes could be cast upon the people who could associate with them.
However, stereotype nowadays is usually perceived as a negative term, a term that usually associated with ignorance, prejudice, and bigotry. It is definitely not something that counts politically correct, but most of times, statistically correct. There is an axiom underlined from this argument: everything is bell-curved from biology. If you wouldn’t agree with that, there’s no need to read what I wrote afterwards, since you would most likely turn emotionally to a dead end of reasoning.
For those who share a slice of sense of respect for the mother nature, stereotype, as far as I concern, not only validates in most cases but more importantly helps us to cope with unfamiliar individuals in the beginning. People are intimidated by things we don’t know. The first thing we do when we meet a complete stranger is to figure out at least some of his/her behavior, background, or manners, to match with some well-established stereotype identities, e.g. a well-mannered businessman, a beer-loving German, or a scarfed conservative Muslim woman. As soon as we link the stranger with certain type of stereotypes (a person could fit into different stereotypes at the same time), we would 1. react to the unfamiliar individual based on the image of stereotypes we keep in mind and 2. seek to evaluate more subtle patterns of his/her behavior, background, and manners to the stereotypes created earlier.
In many times stereotypes do apply in general and help people cope with unknown situations. I’d say it’s a valuable experience accumulated over generations. Based on my cosmopolitan experience, I always happen to validate a lot of stereotypes on the people I met in different parts of the world. Everywhere I go, the stereotype image could always find itself a majority status in the people associated with that certain characteristics. Things that are even a bit edgy, like the incoherence with Islamic community and secular society, the behavior and intelligence difference between different ethnic groups, are proven to be valid one by one not only in a holistic statistical sense, but from my personal experience as well.
At the same time, as I mentioned, exception and irregularity do exist too, though in a much lower frequency. Like in the Bell Curve, there are always statistical outliers that would not fit into the stereotypes. Those individual cases, statistically speaking, is still accepted as the stereotype only aims to cover the majority of the group of people it particularly associates with. People with exceptions could not really change the stereotypes or invalidate them most of the time.
I use myself as an example here. People who know me personally and from this blog probably sense that I am very heretic as a Chinese. I mostly indulge myself in the Western atmosphere and could only find a sense of belonging to the Classic China. I am social, outgoing, athletic, and most importantly, appearing to be the biggest Chinese reactionary among all the Chinese I know (quoted from my friend: A Chinese dissent who doesn’t go with Western mainstream either). Though I was raised in China with heavy Classic Chinese influence, people always mistakenly thought I was raised in the West. I don’t really fit into the Chinese stereotype (math nerd or lab guy, whatever your stereotype is) that is prevalent around the globe. Yet everywhere I go, I always have to make double efforts to appeal to others to dissociate myself from their Chinese stereotypes on me (since most Chinese stereotypes ain’t pretty, and neither do most of fellow countrymen anyway). Am I upset every time I was easily labelled as “Chinese”? Of course, many times. For quite a while I held a sharp aversion against other stereotyped Chinese in and out of China, for their presence help consolidating those unwanted stereotypes everywhere (Chinese are everywhere nowadays). People always come with the pre-assumption of the nerdy or coy Chinese dude they met previously or saw on TV to meet me the first time. In the old time I was determined to whitewash those negative Chinese stereotypes from my own example. After a while it turned out people just associate me with a unique category, whereas their perception towards the Chinese remains. After all, those perceptions towards Chinese are most likely to true in most of cases and are repeatedly drilled frequently nowadays. Over the time I just began to accept the fact of being a statistical outlier who has to make double efforts on everything everywhere I go.
What does this say? It says a unique experience of a person who fails to fulfill generalized expectations. But what does it do to the generalization in the first place? Not much. Unless China has 1.3 million people instead of 1.3 billion people, I might put up with delusion that every Chinese is as cool as me. But that’s not the case. Though I sometimes consider myself a victim of stereotypes, I have to say they are most of the time still valid. To me, to others, nothing is fair and some has to try harder than the others. At least I am glad I could have the luck to be aware of all these in an early stage of my life. In the end of the day, to devise a personalized plan to achieve whatever we want is the most sensible thing in everyone’s life.
A real wise guy would recognize the stereotype while be open-minded about the statistical outliers that he/she may encounter in real life.Let’s say you meet a black guy for a job interview. Though you know the odds of meeting a smart black fella is way slimmer than meeting a random white guy, you still construct your own assessment based on the personal evaluation of that particular individual being. Maybe you could have the luck to meet a very smart black guy (I claim that I have met two that are not really interested in dancing and aggression all the time but science and technology instead). Of course when the person fits most of the criteria of the stereotype you should immediately pull out from your sympathetic and guilty emotion to review him/her with the help of stereotype description. This is not discrimination but merely recognizing the difference among people.
Egalitarianism doesn’t really work in reality, noble concept though. The great Chinese philosopher Confucius once said “Education should be tailor-made in order to fit different individuals (因材施教)”, the denial that says all humans are the same and should be treated equally could pose fundamental social and political adverse consequences if it were assimilated in the societal governing guideline. That’s where most of social problems in the modern civilization stems from – leftism.
Then what about coarse discrimination? They are stereotypes too. I call that the prole comprehension of natural differences. Discrimination happens when the stereotypes combine with strong emotional attachment and evolves into a sort of absolute slogan that is universal to all regardless of individual variance. Together with discrimination, misconception always tends to exist among stereotypes, too. Nothing is perfect. But a smart person knows how to adjust the his/her stereotype image based on updating data.
The validation of stereotype is like the accuracy of the stereotype itself, not all are valid, but the majority of them are.