Muted reaction to Charter 08 explained

[Update: For a superb look at this issue from multiple perspectives, go here now.]

If you want to understand why groups you would expect to be banging the drum for Charter 08 – Falun Gong, the DPP, the Dalai Lama, and even the mainstream foreign media – you can find some interesting answers here. Apparently, everyone with a beef against the CCP can find something about the document that dissatisfies them enough to steer clear, mainly because Charter 08, while calling for dramatic reforms, is, to them, not critical enough of the current system.

I found this so interesting:

More curious, and changing, reactions, came from Falun Gong, or FLG, a religious and political group that has been banned in mainland China. A search on FLG’s Chinese language website Sunday came up with 100 links cheering “Charter 08,” with titles such as “Reform Is Dead, Long Live Revolution!” However a click on any of those links gave only a blank page. Remnants of posts here and there indicate that FLG originally found “Charter 08” an exciting sign of the coming revolution and supported it whole-heartedly. Later, though, they made a 180 degree turn after the FLG leader deemed the manifesto not revolutionary enough, but rather a “ghost shadow” of the communist party.

Understandably however, revolution is favored by few Chinese, whether supporters or contenders of Charter 08. In contrast, many pointed out the legitimacy of Charter 08 in accordance with China’s constitution.

For a little while I thought we were going to see a media avalanche. Looking at the tiny number of publications on Google news that have run with the story, I’m now a lot less certain.

The Discussion: 46 Comments

The chief initiator of Charter 08 is Liu Xiaobo. A leading member of the chinese democracy movement, whose various organizations have annual budgets allocated directly by the NED – National Endowment for Democracy, an organization whose funding comes from the US Congress and the CIA. Wherever there are civil unrest in the world, chances are you can find traces of the NED. And this is claimed by American observers such as Pat Buchanan himself.

In other words, the writing of this document is directly supported and partially funded by the US Government.

Need I say more?

January 10, 2009 @ 1:20 am | Comment

I would like to hear you say more.

Is NED mixed up with those radical islamic feminists? I really hates those people I know Pat Buchanan must be involved.

Also are the PSB monitoring us right now on closed circuit television? I know they have a camera hidden here somewhere.

January 10, 2009 @ 3:59 am | Comment

Here is some information about NED for those interested. Looks to me to most likely be right leaning considering it began under reagan. Doubt they receive any direct funding from the CIA. Spreading democracy is not exactly part of the CIA’s mission statement.

Curious to see how much congress provides them each year. I will see if i can find the public information about their budgets.

The National Endowment for Democracy (NED) is a private, nonprofit organization created in 1983 to strengthen democratic institutions around the world through nongovernmental efforts. The Endowment is governed by an independent, nonpartisan board of directors. With its annual congressional appropriation, it makes hundreds of grants each year to support prodemocracy groups in Africa, Asia, Central and Eastern Europe, Latin America, the Middle East, and the former Soviet Union.

January 10, 2009 @ 4:07 am | Comment

Here is a blurb about a visiting korean scholar researching democracy and confucianism at NED.

perhaps crabmeat could undertake a similar effort the mainland should have some position on democracy and confucianism. don’t want to leave it to the south koreans.

January 10, 2009 @ 4:11 am | Comment

From looking at the website for NED it appears they also receive money through the State department.

Here is an example of activities they fund in or related to china:

“American Center for International Labor Solidarity
To raise awareness of migrant worker rights. The project will operate a telephone hotline and conduct trainings to help educate migrant workers about their rights and to assist them in resolving their issues.”

January 10, 2009 @ 4:15 am | Comment

From wikipedia:

On its official web site, in the history section, its connection with CIA is explained:[9]

In the aftermath of World War II, faced with threats to our democratic allies and without any mechanism to channel political assistance, U.S. policy makers resorted to covert means, secretly sending advisers, equipment, and funds to support newspapers and parties under siege in Europe. When it was revealed in the late 1960’s that some American PVO’s were receiving covert funding from the CIA to wage the battle of ideas at international forums, the Johnson Administration concluded that such funding should cease, recommending establishment of “a public-private mechanism” to fund overseas activities openly.

“ A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA „

—Allen Weinstein, who helped draft the legislation establishing NED, in a 1991 interview with the Washington Post

John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton wrote that before the 1990 elections in Nicaragua, “President George H. W. Bush sent $9 million in NED, including a $4 million contribution to the campaign of opposition presidential candidate Violeta Chamorro”. Chamorro’s party won 55 percent of the vote.

January 10, 2009 @ 6:04 am | Comment

“Need I say more?”

Sure. Say more.

Let’s put aside the possibly impractical question of one-person/one-vote for national office and focus on narrower definitions.

How would freeing the media to report what it wants without fear of reprisal, offering real freedom of religion, making the judicial system completely (de facto and de jure) independent of Party control so that petitioners and plaintiffs can have their cases heard on the legal merits of the case, permitting free expression and the right to demonstrate peacefully, negatively affect China?

Keep in mind that these things would need to be, again, de jure AND de facto and that I’m speaking only of China (comparative arguments in this case can be instructive but are somewhat limiting.

January 10, 2009 @ 7:33 am | Comment

Before we get too deep into any argument with Crabby, please keep in mind that in an earlier post this week he tried to deny that sites are blocked by the government in China. He’s not for real, and I’m pretty sure he’s our old friend Hello, one of the chronic trolls who always posts from around the west/southwest part of America (of course) and is never good at hiding his tracks.

January 10, 2009 @ 12:18 pm | Comment

Citizens have the right to criticize and make suggestions to government institutions and their staff members. They also have the right to complain, bring lawsuits against or report law-breaking activities and dereliction of duty on the part of government officials. To guarantee these rights of citizens, government institutions at all levels have set up offices receiving petitions and personal visits. And the people’s procuratorial organs and administrative supervisory systems at central to local levels have established offence-reporting organs. The news media have also strengthened supervision of cases involving dereliction of duty, abuse of power and infringement of citizens’ legitimate rights and interests by government functionaries. Those who have suffered losses due to the infringement of citizens’ rights by state organs or government functionaries, have the right to compensation according to law. China specially formulated the Administrative Procedure Law in 1991 and the State Compensation Law in 1995. To date, nearly 440,000 administrative cases and 2,566 state compensation cases have been handled by people’s courts, effectively safeguarding the legitimate rights and interests of citizens.

January 10, 2009 @ 12:23 pm | Comment

We have one of those astroturfing CCP moles in our midst. This type of cool, bureaucratic response to human suffering sounds like one of those technocratic reports from Adolph Eichmann to Reinhard Heydrich dispassionately describing the movement of Jews from one place to another (and, of course, to their doom) as if he were writing about a shipment of ball bearings. This is one of the creepiest comments to date, right out of Orwell. Keep it up, Crabs.

January 10, 2009 @ 12:42 pm | Comment

yes, one is not allowed to have an opinion on any subject without having a degree or doctorate in that field. no doubt our next step is to comment on which school bloggers received their degrees from.

January 10, 2009 @ 12:49 pm | Comment

bocaj, that was a spam comment. I am trying to be very open minded (keeping Crab’s comments, at least for now), but when they get to the personal level I am a bit less tolerant.

January 10, 2009 @ 1:00 pm | Comment

What a shame the Charter 08 group isn’t getting more support. But it isn’t difficult to see why — it didn’t get any play. Slyly anti-democracy ESWN had only two posts on it (here and used one to slam both it and Taiwan democracy. Such presentation is clearly intended to defuse/debunk, not enhance it. The one really major article in the traditional media was by a freelancer and was in the Christian Science Monitor, not a big daily like WaPo, which has just five articles mentioning it….

Edgy China blog site shut amid Internet porn sweep

…content, though the site likely had ties to a bold online petition circulated last month called “Charter 08.” The…

Article | 01/06/2009
China seen facing wave of unrest in 2009

Chris Buckley (Reuters)

…on pro-democracy protesters in Tiananmen Square. That date has already galvanised the “Charter 08” campaign…

Article | 01/06/2009
China face economic pain, sensitive anniversaries


…stronger civil rights and an end to Communist Party political dominance. Other people who signed “Charter 08” have…

Article | 01/05/2009
China targets Google in pornography crackdown


…Last month over 300 lawyers, writers, scholars and artists signed a petition online called “Charter 08”, calling…

Article | 12/28/2008
In China, Media Make Small Strides: Officials See More Open but Controlled Reporting as…

Maureen Fan, A16 (Post)

…officials have cracked down on Chinese writers and journalists who signed an open letter, known as Charter ’08,…

Article | 12/18/2008
In China, Justice in Reverse

James V. Feinerman, A25 (Post)

…anniversary of the United Nations’ adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to release “Charter 08,” a…

….and none at all about it. It’s a common pattern in the international media. James Mann has it right: it was cool to be a dissident opposed to concentration camps, control of the media, and authoritarianism if you were anti-Soviet, but not if you are anti-CCP.

I think another problem is that the document appears to fall short of calling for full democracy — it does not call for an end to Han colonialism in Taiwan, Tibet, and Xinjiang, at least not overtly. It was welcomed here in Taiwan, but with the caution that its authors did not go far enough.

And then there are the usual problems of democratic activism in all Chinese societies — the lack of public support and response, the opposition of many interest groups linked to the State, the lack of empathy and civic culture, etc etc etc.

Still, one seed is planted, and the garden may grow, one seed at a time.


January 10, 2009 @ 1:06 pm | Comment

Don’t worry about the immediate impact Michael. Seeding is more powerful than what most people can understand.

Especially in our time thanks to the Internet.

In time as we say. In time.

January 10, 2009 @ 1:27 pm | Comment

It’s as I thought. If ICM had offered anything in the way of nuance or ambiguity in his argument, I might have taken him seriously. As I see now, it’s just more anti-intellectual agenda pushing. Pity.

January 10, 2009 @ 2:23 pm | Comment

“Slyly anti-democracy ESWN…”

Yes, a wolf in sheep’s clothing if ever I saw one. I was once a big fan; these days I refuse to link to his site because of what I perceive to be a decreasingly subtle anti-western, nationalistic agenda.

As for charters, someone ought to remind the CCP that China were party to the drafting and ratification of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Moreover, I suggest that this document’s content, and a critical evaluation of a nation’s adherence to it, should be a compulsory component of everyone’s schooling in ALL countries.

If the Declaration was respected, or even more widely known, there would be no need for Charter ’08.

January 10, 2009 @ 5:40 pm | Comment

The arguments presented by those like crabmeat are not based in intellectual honesty.

There is no intention of exchanging views, nor looking for a real analysis of problem and when possible avoiding the issue completely

It is just oratory, oratory used as a weapon against an opponent. All fallacies and oratory stratagems are allowed. The objective is to defeat the opponent by all means, no matter how questionable, and when that not possible to discredit him.

After reading all too many posts like it, the pattern is easy to recognize.

This was already and old game in antic Greece. Ever hear of the sophists?
And the 20th century is rich with examples.

These guys either try to hide something, come with a hidden agenda or are being pay in some way for doing it.

A good read above some of the techniques used, besides the classical fallacies, can also be found in Schopenhauer’s pocket book
“Die Kunst, Rechts zu behaben. In 38 Kunstgriffen dargestellt”

One last thing.
“He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave.”

January 10, 2009 @ 6:10 pm | Comment

Michael/Stuart – can we really knock ESWN for this? Most blogs haven’t put up one post about it, let alone two or more. I think you are both kind of hard on him. His site links all the time to articles that slam the CCP and its censorship. I’ve had my disagreements with him (and with everyone else), but I honestly cannot understand claims of his being anti-democracy or pro-PRC-nationalism.

Jeremiah, no surprise about Crabs. His very first posts yesterday were pure agenda=pushing.

January 10, 2009 @ 6:50 pm | Comment

the outspoken chinese blog site got shut on Jan9th yesterday.
which is bad.

January 10, 2009 @ 10:46 pm | Comment

Hey Crappy Meat, REJOICE!, they speak about you in the news!!!

China’s internet ‘spin doctors’

January 10, 2009 @ 11:23 pm | Comment

1984 Richard.

China is a Dystopia. Very inspiring actually for movies and games.

January 11, 2009 @ 12:02 am | Comment

Common traits of a dystopian society

The only trait common to all dystopias is that they are negative and undesirable societies, but many commonalities are found across dystopian societies. In general, dystopias are seen as visions of “dangerous and alienating future societies,” often criticizing current trends in culture.[4] It is a culture where the condition of life suffers from deprivation, oppression, or terror.

Sounds familiar?

January 11, 2009 @ 12:38 am | Comment

I Believe Freedom of Speech Is Not That Big Of A Deal

Of all the “basic human rights”, freedom of speech is put on a prominent place, and is the biggest desire of all intellectuals.

This essay plans to lay out some opinions that support the limitation on the freedom of speech. Of course, I welcome all criticisms. If the moderator does not like this essay, feel free to edit or delete it, I don’t mind at all. It will be ironic of me to write an essay supporting the limitation on the freedom of speech and ask the moderator not to censor it. Also, the essay is not a satire, it is an opinion.

First, we all agree that absolute freedom of speech does not exist. The famous “you cannot falsely yell fire in a theater” is clear evidence that speech that endangers or libels other people is prohibitted. But I am not talking about those kinds of limitations on speech: those limitations are agreed by everyone and is enforced by law, whether in America or in any other place. Therefore I will focus on those speech that are allowed by law. By “allowed by law”, I mean there’ll be no legal procedures, no sentencing, no fines.

Now, you will ask, if the speech is legal, then it should be spread freely. It is a sacred human right. If it is legal, what you say should not be interferred. That is the point I want to investigate.

Let’s first talk about human acts. There are a lot of acts that are legal. But amongst those acts, some are harmful to society. It’s just that those harms are not as evident and immediate as the ones through illegal acts. Or, some harms are just as immediate as illegal ones, but there’s no laws yet to prohibit it. For example, cooking. Cooking needs the burning of fuel, and burning creates carbon dioxide in the air, and hydrogen gets reduced as a result. Now is cooking illegal? Of course not. But, if there’s an excess production of carbon dioxide, such as too many cars, turning on lights in empty business buildings, etc. Will those be harmful to human society? Of course they will. This example illustrates that even if something is perfectly legal, it can still be harmful to society if done in excess. And that’s the reason there are so many environmental groups trying to stop the waste of energy.

NOw, let’s get back to speech. I believe you know what my opinion is now. I believe in the system of human society, there contains a large amount of harmful speech and harmful information. But their harm is not very immediate and direct, so there’s no law prohibiting them, and there’s no need to prohibit them. But interferrence is a must, that is, interferrence of harmful speech outside the legal system is a necessary precondition for the defense of human social system.

Especially, there exists a method, a method to massively infuse into a society certain kinds of speech or information that is legal within that society, but very harmful to the society. This method can be elaborated into a big systematic project. So that you can collapse and destroy a country’s system from the outside. For example the USSR, it’s not collapsed by war or by nuclear bombs, it’s collapsed by the the continual injection of harmful information.

Then, why can’t a country fight back using the same method? The reason is that human soceity has always been a society where one class rides on top of another class. This has been a tradition that is deeply rooted in the system. Socialism, other the other hand, is a relatively new system. And a new system of course lacks tradition. In other words, when people enter a socialist system, it takes a long time for their mindset to leave the old system. So the socialist system lacks a tradition, or a root if you will. So it’s very much like a tree that has not solidly grasped the soil yet, and is very easily knocked down. Therefore it is critical to enforce information control. As time goes on and the new system becomes a not-so-new-system, as it gains its own tradition and its own root and its own grasp of soil, then it can relax such control, because it is strong enough to withstand some wind.

Now, let’s go a step further. Imagine someone invents a new drug in his lab, is that illegal? Of course not. But if he starts to advertise his drugs in society and sell them, without testing, without approval by any agencies, is that illegal? At least in America, that is absolutely illegal. Even if his drugs proves to be good and effective, it’s still illegal. Because in order to massively spread a new drug, there must be a legal procedure of approval.

Now, imagine for a moment that there’s a “mind” laboratory, and someone invents a new “ideological drug” in that lab. That drug supposedly will solve certain social problems of human societies. Is that illegal? Of course not. But if he starts to spread his drug without testing, can it be potentially harmful to society? Of course. Therefore anyone has the right to experiment in the ideological lab, but to massively spread something into society without testing is a quite different thing. The spreading of a thought among scholars is one thing, the spreading of a thought through society using the media is quite another thing.

If a social scientist suddenly stops a person and asks: “why should you respect your parents?” and tell that person that some advanced nations do not have the tradition of respecting their parents. This question would be very difficult to answer, it involves philosophy, behaviorial science, etc. And that person who respects his parents may not really have an answer. So after a few discussions with the scientist, he starts to think: “maybe the scientist is right. WHy should I treat my parents so well? There’s no reason!”. From that point on, the seed of destruction has been planted in his family.

In fact, we do not have answers to many questions of our soceity. But the society does not stop going because we have no answers. We continue to research the unknown, and therefore any kind of opinions can be raised. But selling your products from the ideological lab before reliability testing can create social disasters. Very much like selling defective cars. If someone says there is no need to respect your parents, and says the respect for parents is conditional. It’s entirely possible that his reasoning would be sound and correct. But if he starts to spread his views with the help of the media, and people start to read “we don’t need to respect our parents” on the newspapers everyday, the harm done is evident.

Especially for the hardworking, poor workers of China: they did not learn too much from books. So when they listen to certain scholars who are well versed in the art of rhetoric and argumentation, they’ll be very easily convinced. And if those rhetoritians and argumentationists massively control the media, I believe the harm is great.

In reality, most of China’s intellectuals complain about lack of freedom of speech. What they are really complaining about is not that they can’t say stuff after dinner in their houses, if they do, no one will know and they will be safe. What they are complaning about is that they don’t have control of media tools such as newspapers, TV’s, radios. They wish to spread their “products” to society. But they have not proven that their products have passed reliability testing.

In conclusion: I believe we cannot view the non-judicial limitation of the freedom of speech as a violation of human rights.

January 11, 2009 @ 1:13 am | Comment

Math… Math…

Let me spell it nicely for you tonight.

China is an ideological Cancer. And once it starts spreading, expect a VERY strong backlash. You can copy paste your last comment, to make it stronger.

But think 2 seconds about what I’ve just said. And try to sleep tonight.

Ideological Cancer.

What do we use to threat cancer? Radiations.

Sleep well Math.

January 11, 2009 @ 1:22 am | Comment

Heh. Math, did you know this exact comment, word for word, appeared elsewhere? Doh! It’s your own post! And it’s four years old!

Have you met Imitation Crabmeat? (See above and the earlier thread on Charter 08 for reference.) Are you both paid by the same boss? Are you both for real? Just curious….

January 11, 2009 @ 1:25 am | Comment


You’ve seen the light Richard… 😉

I did not want to expose it again, but you found it. Glad you Google these comments now. And for all the readers, this should be our first reflex.

It’s funny and mentally healthy.

January 11, 2009 @ 1:34 am | Comment

I’ve been googling suspicious comments for years, ever since we had a certain incident back in 2005.

January 11, 2009 @ 1:44 am | Comment

Which incident?

I do not remember.

But one thing is for sure, is that when we argue with these faceless people, it feels strange a little. I always have an uneasy feeling, an after taste. It’s just… Surreal somehow, like a bad play. I feel like I am having a verbal exchange with HAL9000. It’s just reinforcing a lot of stereotypes. It’s not a human exchange.

I just cannot accept that it’s really real and that in 2008 we still have to struggle with such a reality.

It’s also sad somehow. Very sad.

January 11, 2009 @ 1:52 am | Comment

Just read the comments to this post. This is how things used to be around here back then, when we’d get more than 2,500 readers a day. Too bad I had to slow it down. This is was wildest thread in this blog’s history, for whatever that’s worth. Keep reading – it unwinds like a mystery novel.

January 11, 2009 @ 2:02 am | Comment


You asked for it…

January 11, 2009 @ 4:37 am | Comment

@ Richard 18

ESWN has a clear anti-DPP bias. He obsessively posted anti-Chen Shuibian material last year, much of it more amusing/embarrassing than substantial.

To me he seems fundamentally anti-Taiwan. That is, he sees ‘Taiwan as province of China’ as more important than ‘Taiwan as whatever the Taiwanese want it to be’. Chen Shuibian may have dominated the headlines in Taiwan during the past year, but to me the systematic dismantling of democracy in Taiwan by the KMT seems to be the far more significant story.

ESWN constantly posts Glen Greenwald articles about the dismantling of democracy in the United States, he writes frequently about the ‘two-steps-forward one-step-back’ progress towards more transparent and responsive government in the PRC, he writes about democrats in Hong Kong, but he utterly ignores the dismantling of democracy in Taiwan.

He seems to see Taiwan as significant only in so much as it fulfills the grand Chinese nationalist project. I find this biased.

January 11, 2009 @ 5:14 am | Comment

[…] speaking media and blogs, it has since got more attention, with featured posts by Xujun Eberlein, Peking Duck, FM, and now also ESWN. Most importanlty, in the Chinese speaking circles, it is slowly gaining […]

January 11, 2009 @ 5:58 am | Pingback

Math is concerned with the input of harmful information to the Chinese society, as if the Chinese people have a weak and simple mind so vulnerable to bad influence, so the government has to purify the information before it is fed to the people. According to Math, the Chinese people seem to have very poor judgment and to be so immature that they could easily act on any piece of information they have heard of.

The key point is that the Chinese government has to be able to implement the long-standing ” keep-the-people-ignorant policy” and to brainwash them. A washed and almost sterile brain of course is most vulnerable to different POVs, thanks to the Chinese government.

In the U.S., we have access to all the websites and the CCTV propaganda is on air 24/7, while in China, the people can’t see CNN or even the NY Times website.

January 11, 2009 @ 6:04 am | Comment

Think Ming, I would not disagree that ESWN is prejudiced against the DPP. Sometimes I am, too. And I’m prejudiced against the Republican Party as well That doesn’t make me anti-democracy or pro-anything. About being “anti-Taiwan,” I have never seen that. Unless being anti-Bush makes me anti-American. Again, I sometimes disagree with ESWN, but this seems like a pretty weak argument.

January 11, 2009 @ 11:26 am | Comment

You see Richard, those people often accuse “Mainland Nationalists” to be “simplistic” and to enjoy, in their words, broad and meaningless phrases like “anti-China”. Now we discover when the tables are turned, they relish these phrases all the same. Just like to a fenqing anti-CCP is the same as anti-Taiwan, to them, anti-DPP is anti-Taiwan, anti-Democracy, and lo and behold, anti-West (all those 3 phrases were used by them if you scroll up)!

Looks like the doctors are exhibiting the same symptoms. Or, in the words of a senior Chinese Central Banker when describing the US financial crisis, “The teacher now has some problems.”

January 11, 2009 @ 12:25 pm | Comment

Correction:J ust like to a fenqing anti-CCP is the same as anti-China.

January 11, 2009 @ 12:26 pm | Comment

[…] truth is, however, that Charter 08 is unlikely to have a major impact, at least in the short run.  First of all, the government is up on its history, and takes great pains to isolate and […]

January 11, 2009 @ 12:51 pm | Pingback

Everyone should go read Jeremiah’s post on this topic right now.

January 11, 2009 @ 3:59 pm | Comment

offering real freedom of religion

Freedom FROM anti-science organized religious tyranny is more important nowadays. “Freedom of religion” is just code for “allow Christian missionaries to aggressively convert all the ignoramuses and morons in your country; undermining the entire nation”.

As for the rest, they can loosen up controls but the typical Euro-American propaganda needs to be zapped. Stuff that’s well-sourced, peer-reviewed, otherwise useful should be allowed.

January 11, 2009 @ 5:52 pm | Comment

That’s the difference between us, Ferin: I don’t think people in China are either ignoramuses or morons and you do. I believe rather that people here are smart enough to think for themselves. Pity, really, that you have such a low opinion of the Chinese.

January 11, 2009 @ 5:56 pm | Comment

I am a Chinese, I have to say most Chinese are ignoramuse or morons. They don’t have any faith or belief, what they want is just a place to live and food to eat. So they are just tools of communist dictators and they are even proud of being the tools. I am lucky I am out of that silly country.

January 12, 2009 @ 7:43 am | Comment


We all need a place to live and food to eat and a few things more like clothes and stuff, in that respect all human beings are the same. If people are ignorant (don’t use words like morons, it’s just insulting others without contributing anything to the discussion, in other words what a troll would do) if people are ignorant that is a result of the bad or non-existant education they went through. That’s one of he big problems in the PRC: the way children are indoctrinated starting from kindergarten. So I do understand you feel lucky to be out of China. Who would want their kids to be educated in that system?

January 12, 2009 @ 6:18 pm | Comment

That’s one of he big problems in the PRC: the way children are indoctrinated starting from kindergarten.

Not a problem unique to China. The only thing is that you whine about it because Europeans expect all non-Europeans to give them special treatment.

In the U.S., we have access to all the websites and the CCTV propaganda is on air 24/7

Irrelevant. CCTV has 0 market penetration in the U.S and no credibility in China. CNN/Faux have the funds to possibly make inroads into the Chinese market. That would be unacceptable, considering 99% of American media is pure horse crap.

January 13, 2009 @ 3:08 pm | Comment

I don’t think people in China are either ignoramuses or morons and you do.

Learn how to read. Even if it’s 15% (unlike America where 50% have <100 IQ) it’s still too much. Nothing assembles idiots into a destructive mob like organized religion does.

January 13, 2009 @ 3:33 pm | Comment

“Irrelevant. CCTV has 0 market penetration in the U.S and no credibility in China. CNN/Faux have the funds to possibly make inroads into the Chinese market.”

Well, it seems it’s about to change very soon!

“China spends 45 billion to extend media’s global reach”

January 13, 2009 @ 4:05 pm | Comment

[…] truth is, however, that Charter 08 is unlikely to have a major impact, at least in the short run.  First of all, the government is up on its history, and takes great pains to isolate and […]

October 8, 2010 @ 7:53 pm | Pingback

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.