Why I Nominated Liu Xiaobo

On January 29, 2010, Kwame Anthony Appiah, the president of the global literary and human rights NGO PEN, sent this letter nominating Liu Xiaobo for the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize. Republished here with permission.

BY KWAME ANTHONY APPIAH | OCTOBER 8, 2010

Dear Members of the Nobel Peace Prize Committee:

I am writing as the Laurance S. Rockefeller University Professor of Philosophy and the University Center for Human Values at Princeton University and as President of PEN American Center to nominate Dr. Liu Xiaobo of China for the Nobel Peace Prize.

You are no doubt familiar with Liu Xiaobo’s immediate circumstances. On December 25, 2009, when the Chinese government believed that the world would not be paying attention, a Beijing court sentenced Liu to 11 years in prison and an additional two years’ deprivation of political rights for “inciting subversion of state power.” This so-called incitement, the verdict made clear, consisted of seven phrases—a total of 224 Chinese characters—that he had written over the last three years. I have attached a list of these phrases, which appeared in six essays and in Charter 08, a declaration modeled on Vaclav Havel’s Charter 77 that calls for political reform and greater human rights in China and has been signed, at considerable risk, by more than 10,000 Chinese citizens.

You are also surely familiar with Liu Xiaobo’s long history as one of the leading proponents of peaceful democratic reform in the People’s Republic of China. A poet and a literary critic, Liu served as a professor at Beijing Normal University and was a leading voice and an influential presence during the student protests in Tiananmen Square in 1989; indeed, his insistence on non-violence and democratic process are widely credited with preventing far more catastrophic bloodshed during the subsequent crackdown.

Along with my duties as a professor at Princeton University, I am also currently serving as President of PEN American Center, as I mentioned at the start; and in submitting this nomination of Liu Xiaobo I am particularly proud to note that Liu Xiaobo is not only a colleague of mine in the world of letters, but also, more particularly, a PEN colleague. Liu has been a leading figure in the Independent Chinese PEN Center (ICPC), our sister center, whose 250 members are doing courageous, on-the-ground advocacy work for freedom of expression in China despite constant pressure from Chinese authorities. Liu served as President of ICPC from 2003 to 2007, held seat a on its Board until late 2009, and is currently serving as Honorary President. Since ICPC was formed in 2001, it has emerged as a leading source of information about threats to writers and journalists and an important voice for freedom of expression in China, and it has come under increased pressure for its activities. Its meetings have been interrupted and canceled by authorities, its officers and members are regularly subject to intimidation and surveillance, and many have been detained and questioned about the center’s activities. Liu Xiaobo is one of six PEN members currently in prison in China.

In addition to Liu’s distinguished and principled leadership in the area of human and political rights and freedom of expression, there are many reasons why I believe Liu Xiaobo merits selection as the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize Recipient.

Liu’s writings express the aspirations of a growing number of China’s citizens; the ideas he has articulated in his allegedly subversive writings, ideas that are commonplace in free societies around the world, are shared by a significant cross section of Chinese society. Charter 08, for example, is a testament to an expanding movement for peaceful political reform in China. This document, which Liu co-authored, is a remarkable attempt both to engage China's leadership and to speak to the Chinese public about where China is and needs to go. It is novel in its breadth and in its list of signers—not only dissidents and human rights lawyers, but also prominent political scientists, economists, writers, artists, grassroots activists, farmers, and even government officials. More than 10,000 Chinese citizens have endorsed the document despite the fact that almost all of the original 300 signers have since been detained or harassed. In doing so they, too, exhibited exceptional courage and conviction. One of them, for example, a teacher in Yunnan province, reported that police contacted her three times asking her to renounce the Charter and proclaim the signer was some other person with the same name. She refused. To stand up for Liu Xiaobo is to stand with a growing number of men and women like her in China; to stand with all those who advocate for peaceful change in the world’s most populous nation.

In fact, Liu Xiaobo is the kind of figure governments suppress at their peril. While he was a young university professor, Liu was a major protagonist in the final days of the Tiananmen Square protests, and, as I have already said, he is widely credited with preventing far greater bloodshed when government troops moved into the square. Liu admonished the students to make their own movement more democratic; he disarmed a group of workers who appeared with guns to protect the student demonstrators (there is stirring news footage of him seizing a rifle and smashing it at a Tiananmen rally shortly before the crackdown); and he helped persuade students to evacuate the square in the final hours. Deeply committed to non-violence and democracy, Liu has been able both to articulate and to channel the frustrations of the Chinese people for more than two decades. Stifling such a voice does nothing to address those frustrations, which one way or another will eventually find expression. China has, indeed, moved increasingly towards democracy and freedom in the last few decades.

The numbers of those imprisoned in China for exercising their right to free expression guaranteed to them by international human rights law was once in the thousands, if not tens of thousands: today we can identify only a few score such prisoners in the name of free expression. There are voices within the regime, we know, urging greater respect for free expression. China wants—and needs—to be heard in the community of nations. I—and all of my PEN colleagues—believe in a cosmopolitan conversation in which we hear from every nation. But the world must let China’s rulers know that we can only listen respectfully if they offer to their own citizens the fundamental freedoms we all claim from our governments. This is the right moment for the world to show those in China who do not understand that history is on freedom’s side that all the world’s friends of peace and democracy are watching. No signal of this would be more powerful than the award of the Nobel Peace Prize.

Over the years, the Nobel Committee has had a distinguished record of recognizing and honoring just such voices at just such critical moments. Liu Xiaobo stands in the company of Andrei Sakharov, Shirin Ebadi, and Dr. Martin Luther King, brave proponents of civil and political rights who have stood up to systematic repression in their own countries and practiced principled, non-violent resistance to bad laws and policies. In fact, the year before my countryman Dr. King was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1964, he wrote in his seminal letter from a Birmingham jail, “An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law.” Ten days after Liu Xiaobo was sentenced, he was able to release a statement through his lawyers. In it, he echoed Dr. King when he declared, “For an intellectual thirsty for freedom in a dictatorial country, prison is the very first threshold. Now I have stepped over the threshold, and freedom is near.”

It is likely that the Chinese government will want to argue, as indeed it already has, that their treatment of Liu Xiaobo is an internal matter, and that international awards and advocacy on his behalf amount to meddling in China’s internal affairs. But in fact, as PEN American Center noted in a letter to Chinese President Hu Jintao following Liu’s conviction, the treatment he has endured is by definition an international matter, just as all violations of human rights are matters of legitimate concern to the whole world. By detaining Liu Xiaobo for more than a year, and then by convicting and sentencing him to 11 years in prison in clear violation of his most fundamental, internationally-recognized rights, the People’s Republic of China itself has guaranteed that his case is not and cannot be a purely internal affair. China’s citizens should be concerned that Liu Xiaobo was denied rights enshrined in the Chinese constitution; all of us have a right to express our concern that he was denied rights guaranteed in international treaties to which China is a signatory.

Human rights are the legitimate concern of all human beings. That principle was established firmly in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Liu Xiaobo is one of some 45 writers currently imprisoned in China in violation of Article 19 of the UDHR and the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, and honoring him with the Nobel Peace Prize would be a powerful way to underscore the fact that the rights that are enshrined in international human rights law—values that China has acknowledged and endorsed—are the non-negotiable entitlements of every man and woman.

This is a message that the Chinese government needs to hear, more urgently than ever. If Liu Xiaobo’s case demonstrates anything, it is that Chinese authorities are now operating with a sense of impunity, convinced that they can stifle dissent and control the flow of information and ideas in their country without significant domestic or international repercussions. In the long run, of course, they will be proven wrong. But in the short term, there is every reason to worry about how many others will be silenced or suppressed if the world fails to make clear it stands with Liu Xiaobo. Just two weeks ago, I learned that Zhao Shiying, the Secretary General of the Independent Chinese PEN Center, had been detained, quite possibly because he has been a vocal critic of his government’s treatment of Liu Xiaobo. That he was released two weeks later gives me hope that the Chinese authorities are aware that the world is watching.

If China can jail Liu Xiaobo without repercussions, it isn’t just dissident voices inside China that are vulnerable. A feature of China's ascendancy on the world stage has been its implicit agreement with rights-abusing regimes in other nations that it will turn a blind eye to even the most blatant human rights violations in exchange for preferred commercial relations. The courageous men and women who are challenging tyranny in these countries are looking to the governments and leading non-governmental institutions in free countries for assurances that their fate, and the fate of their countries, depends on something more than the bottom line. To fail to challenge the Chinese government on Liu Xiaobo’s imprisonment is to concede this argument internationally, at enormous peril to peaceful advocates of progress and change not just in China but all around the world. Awarding Liu Xiaobo the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize, by contrast, would both honor Dr. Liu’s unique and indispensable contributions to the movement for greater civil, political, and human rights in China and serve as sustenance and inspiration to present and future rights activists in China and in every nation.

While I decided, after consultation with my colleagues at PEN, to write in support of Liu Xiaobo’s nomination some time ago, I am delighted to see that a number of leading intellectuals from other countries, including some eminent Nobel Laureates, have done so already.

I am attaching a few materials that I hope will prove helpful in evaluating this nomination: letters on Liu’s behalf from PEN American Center to President Obama and President Hu Jintao, and a letter in support of this nomination endorsed by some of my most eminent colleagues in the United States. I hope these are helpful. I am very grateful to have had the opportunity to commend Liu Xiaobo to you, and I look forward, as always, to your decision.

 

Sincerely,

Kwame Anthony Appiah
Professor

 SUBJECTS: CHINA, HUMAN RIGHTS
 

Kwame Anthony Appiah is the Laurance S. Rockefeller professor of philosophy at Princeton University and president of the Pen American Center. He is the author most recently of The Honor Code: How Moral Revolutions Happen.

DR.BARNSHER

8:27 AM ET

October 8, 2010

Nobel Peace Prize

Last night I heard Professor Brown talk about Honor and his latest book at the Aloud Program of the Central Library of Los Angeles.
This is a thinker, a shining light of honest incisive inquiry.
His case for Dr. Liu Xiaobo of China is exemplary.
The despotic nature of China is as ugly as the reign of any Emperor and the exposure of this government's abuses has been suppressed by their economic influence over the West. A country created by the abuse of workers for which their revolution was supposedly for. They treat their citizens as vassals for the state, no better than any cruel barbaric leader in history.
While we vilify an entire religion due to a small maniacal barbaric extreme we have ignored the excesses of power that China has exercised as they control half the world's population.
The world gives lip service to the Dalai Lama but watches as China calls a religious icon a criminal inciter and commits slow genocide on an entire culture based on inclusion tolerance and peace.
Shame on China.
They are the nouveau riche without charm or taste, the bully who picks on the weak, flexing their might in gross manipulation of truth and common decency.
Dr. Liu's bravery in this oppressive atmosphere is saintly at best, Honorable at the least and worthy of the Prize.
We should not be spending our moral energy on the small fringe of extreme Islam which would like to return the Human Race to the Caves, but to renounce the horrendous daily abuse of half the world's population's basic human freedoms.
Cheers for the Nobel Committee.

 

MISHMAEL

12:22 PM ET

October 8, 2010

@BARNSHER

What a hateful and bigoted American you are. You refuse to concede the humanity of the Chinese people, and insultingly dismiss them as the villain in your bucolic fantasy. China's government has done more for its people than any other on earth, and is certainly more relevant than your precious West. It is representative of their needs, and while certainly not perfect, it practices the respect for them that you so obviously do not. Shame on you. Injustice exists when one's fate is denied by bigotry and hate, not when one accepts the fate they choose for themselves. In this case, you have committed an injustice against the Chinese people, and I demand an apology on their behalf.

 

DR.BARNSHER

12:45 PM ET

October 8, 2010

China

The only apology would be to Professor Appiah for calling him Brown.
Apologists such as you who ignore gross injustice and pathological lies from a government due to hegemonic archaic attitudes deserve nothing but pity.

 

PUBLICUS

12:35 PM ET

October 30, 2010

The Taipei Times English language newspaper on Taiwan: "Fascism

Fascism "with Chinese characteristics"

The following appeared the the Taipei Times earlier this year. The Taipei Times is a daily and Sunday English language newspaer on Taiwan. Those of you who think Taiwan is a province of the PRC/CCP and who suffer from that particular delusion should read this peice, as follows:

Fascism "with Chinese characteristics"

Taipei Times

Editorials
Fri, Mar 12, 2010 - Page 8

China shows signs of neo-fascism
By J. Michael Cole

With its strong emphasis on technology, the military, strong single-party leadership and a collective national identity that refuses to recognize pluralism, the PRChina is displaying increasing — and worrying — symptoms of fascism.

From the military parade surrounding the 60th anniversary of the birth of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) on Oct. 1 to forced relocation and assimilation programs targeting ethnic minority groups such as the Uighurs, the PRC is in many ways reminding us of the fascist states that reared their ugly heads in the first half of the previous century.

In some ways, it is difficult to apply that term to the rising dragon, primarily because of some marked differences from its predecessors. For one, fascist states tended to be short-lived and led by strong — and often charismatic — rulers. he PRC, even if we take 1949 as its starting point, has a long history and its leaders, with the possible exception of former premier Zhou Enlai, are not known for their charisma.

The PRC's embrace of capitalism in the early 1990s has also masked its fascistic tendencies, because “unrestrained capitalism” was one of the principal targets of fascism. The fact that the PRC finds its roots in communism and 19th century European class conflict — both of which fascism traditionally opposed — can also mislead the observer.

Still, today’s PRC arguably represents fascism 2.0, neo-fascism or “fascism with Chinese characteristics.”

One of the most peremptory signs of fascism is the state’s negation of individualism and the idea that citizens draw their identity and raison d’etre from the state. Evidence of this emerged earlier this week when Chinese Vice Sports Minister Yu Zaiqing chided 18-year-old Olympic champion short track speed skater Zhou Yang for thanking her parents — but not her country — after winning gold at the Vancouver Winter Games last month.

“It’s OK to thank your parents, but first you should thank the motherland. You should put the motherland first, not only thank your parents,” Yu told the Southern Metropolis Daily.

In his book "Anatomy of Fascism," American historian Robert Paxton defines fascism as “a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites abandons democratic liberties,” traits that are apparent in the PRC today.

Traits.

In his essay" Fourteen Ways of Looking at a Blackshirt," published in the New York Review of Books in 1995, Italian intellectual Umberto Eco highlights aspects of fascism that have disturbing reverberations in the contemporary PRC. Features of Ur-Fascism, or “eternal fascism,” Eco writes, “cannot be organized into a system; many of them contradict each other, and are also typical of other kinds of despotism or fanaticism. But it is enough that one of them be present to allow fascism to coagulate around it.”

Let us explore the features unearthed by Eco that apply to the PRC today.

For Ur-Fascism, disagreement is treason.

In the contemporary PRC, this translates into the state’s intolerance of dissent. Reporters (foreign and local), rights activists and ordinary citizens face censure, arrest and loss of employment if they dare criticize the state. Critical coverage of everything from lagging reconstruction in quake-hit Sichuan to calls, recently published in 13 daily newspapers, for an end to the unjust hukou passport — a system introduced during the Maoist era that prevents most Chinese, especially residents in rural areas, from moving to other parts of the country — is seen as treason. Even when motivated by love of country, anyone who criticizes the authorities over such matters as environmental catastrophes, social inequity, corruption, forced relocation, outbreaks of disease (such as SARS) and censorship can be assured of negative repercussions for himself and his relatives. [The Nobel Peace Laureate] Liu Xiaobo and Gao Zhisheng are two recent examples.

This phenomenon is behind Beijing’s oft-used reference to the “feelings of the Chinese people” being hurt by negative news coverage or other counties’ policies that run counter to the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) national policies.

Disagreement is a sign of diversity.

Eco writes: “Ur-Fascism grows up and seeks consensus by exploiting and exacerbating the natural fear of difference. The first appeal of a fascist or prematurely fascist movement is an appeal against the intruders. Thus Ur-Fascism is racist by definition.”

In his book "When China Rules the World," British author Martin Jacques, whose views on the PRC are hardly critical, argues that the greatest problem likely to accompany the PRC's rise will not be political, but rather “Han Chinese” racism. Beijing’s attempts to portray its citizens, regardless of ethnic background, as “Han Chinese,” is part of that feature. Its refusal to regard Taiwanese or Aborigines as ethnic groups in their own right is also a symptom of its enmity toward diversity.

To people who feel deprived of a clear social identity, Ur-Fascism says that their only privilege is the most common one, to be born in the same country.

This, of course, is the very core of nationalism.

“At the root of the Ur-Fascist psychology,” Eco writes, “there is the obsession with a plot, possibly an international one. The followers must feel besieged. The easiest way to solve the plot is the appeal to xenophobia.”

Yu’s berating of Zhou for thanking her parents but “neglecting” the nation — her “only privilege” — stems from this phenomenon. The obsession with plots, both domestic and international, is also prevalent in CCP rhetoric, from fears of US “encirclement” and “containment” to “splittism” in Tibet, Xinjiang and Taiwan.

The followers must feel humiliated by the ostentatious wealth and force of their enemies.

“However,” Eco writes, “the followers of Ur-Fascism must also be convinced that they can overwhelm the enemies. Thus, by a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak. Fascist governments are condemned to lose wars because they are constitutionally incapable of objectively evaluating the force of the democratic opponent.

This obviously applies to perceptions of the US and, to a lesser extent, Japan and India. It also explains fears, mostly expressed by political scientists, that the PRC could “miscalculate” by expecting that it could prevail in a conflict in the Taiwan Strait despite US participation. As the PRC's military modernizes, reinforced by notions of victimhood and nationalism, the likelihood that it will embark on military adventurism — either against Taiwan or elsewhere, such as a border conflict with India — will increase.

Elitism is a typical aspect of any reactionary ideology … [and] cruelly implies contempt for the weak.

“The members of the party are the best among the citizens [and] every citizen can [or ought to] become a member of the party,” Eco writes. However, “knowing that his power was not delegated to him democratically, but was conquered by force, [the leadership] also knows that his force is based upon the weakness of the masses; they are so weak as to need and deserve a ruler.”

The CCP’s claims that Chinese are “not ready” for democracy also derive from this aspect of fascism.

Ur-Fascism is based upon a selective populism, a qualitative populism.

“For Ur-Fascism ... individuals as individuals have no rights, and the People is conceived as a quality, a monolithic entity expressing the Common Will. Since no large quantity of human beings can have a common will, the Leader pretends to be their interpreter,” Eco writes.

Not only do Chinese citizens have no “common will,” but the “interpreter” — the CCP — endeavors to ensure that no large group can achieve common will, which would threaten its hold on power. Religious groups like the Falun Gong and the Roman Catholic Church, opposition parties, ethnic groups and protesters — all are closely monitored, forced underground or dispersed when the “threat” of organized opposition to central rule begins to form.

This fear is also inspired by memories of warlordism, which for decades compelled the CCP to impose restrictions on each region’s control over the armed forces, even at the cost of loss of effectiveness.

“There is in our future a TV or Internet populism, in which the emotional response of a selected group of citizens can be presented and accepted as the Voice of the People,” Eco writes.

The CCP's control of information, its use of Internet Police to monitor Web and SMS activity, and a strong emphasis on Chinese symbolism and culture that is prevalent in the film industry are Eco’s future, and it has arrived.

Ur-Fascism speaks Newspeak.

“Elements of Ur-Fascism are common to different forms of dictatorship. All the Nazi or Fascist schoolbooks made use of an impoverished vocabulary, and an elementary syntax, in order to limit the instruments for complex and critical reasoning,” Eco writes.

The CCP’s imposition of simplified Chinese, which deprives Chinese citizens access to ancient texts and, in many ways, created an intellectual Year Zero in 1949, is such an instrument, as is censorship of the media and control of the material allowed to enter the country.

“Ur-Fascism is still around us, sometimes in plainclothes … [It] can come back under the most innocent of disguises,” Eco writes.

It is rising next door.

(J. Michael Cole is a journalist at the ‘Taipei Times.’)

 

MISHMAEL

1:13 PM ET

October 8, 2010

You

Why must you insist on a narrative that creates an absolute arbiter of justice, ie yourself? What makes your accusations more legitimate than the success of millions? I do not want you to pity me, rather I want you to try and listen to what I am saying. I choose to support that which is good for people, not what adheres to my beliefs. I choose to reject your black-and-white perversion of China's role because it is wrong, and because there is nothing unique to China that cannot be said of anyone else. What purpose can you possibly have in insulting a people, a government, and a nation other than to satisfy your own beliefs? There are always more questions than answers Professor" Barnsher, and I do not appreciate your inexplicable ideological absolutism.

 

DR.BARNSHER

10:37 AM ET

October 9, 2010

The Last Word

I might point out the obvious confusion you show when you equate an assessment of the Chinese government as an attack on the Chinese people. This clearly underscores your mindless patriotism.
We in the West can curse our government policies such as the War in Iraq and Afghanistan and still fervently believe in our country, mainly because we can. The Chinese have to be puppets of the state or they risk their freedom or worse, their lives; If you cannot appreciate that difference you deserve more than pity; you deserve complicity in their crimes. Those who do not speak out against evil, support it. I was talking of the Government. Confusing the government with the Chinese people is what I would expect of what apparently is an apologist who cannot think for themselves. Your attitude is that of an immature belligerant child.
I pray for you that you may stop living in the Shadows of the Cave and that you may one day walk out into the Light.
And that is my last word.

 

PUBLICUS

1:15 PM ET

October 30, 2010

China is a reactionary censoring mind controlling dictatorship

What does the PRC/CCP present or represent to the modern and future world except its same same absolute beliefs of the past 5000 years of authoritarian dictatorship? Of top-down authoritarian control?

While many countries of East Asia, to name the most immediate and relevant region of the world, have adopted democracy as the basis of their society, culture, civilization the Jung Gwo continue to grasp desperately at dictatorship and fascist censorship, oligarchy, autocracy and a severe punishing mentality of obey-disobey as we see with the imprisoned Nobel Peace Laureate Liu Xiaobo and against his contemporary Gao Zhisheng who likely is next in line for the fascist dictators of Beijing to punish ever so severely.

China offers nothing to the world as a model of development in the vital matters of liberty, individual development, widespread economic success of the population as a whole (800 000 000 Chinese continue to live in a state of poverty equal to that of the European Dark Ages), of a population that is educated in personal and intellectual self development and self sufficiency; that is not a nation of obedient sheeple, i.e., a happily compliant herd.

The West and the United States have developed the reality of, and offer the reality and further promise of prosperity for the great mass of their populations; we do so in the context of the European Enlightenment which is predicated on the rationality of the people and of individual in the larger democratic society, and offers that promise to the future of humankind to include most recently human rights (which the PRC/CCP violently opposes in Han China proper and in its subjugated newest provinces Tibet and the far western conquored region of the Muslim and Turkik speaking XinJiang which has nothing in common with the hegemonists of the present day Beijing.

The PRC/CCP is the world's leading reactionary force against the modern world as defined by the European Enlightenment and significant events consequent and subsequent to it, such as the American Revolution, the French Revolution, republican democracy, the anti fascist wars of the 20th century and in our countering of the the last bastion of dictatorial censoring fascism, the PRC/CCP.

The PRC/CCP stands for nothing in the modern world except a continuation of the ancient and decrepit past of absolute rule by dictators, plutocrats, oligarchs, autocrats and corrupt government bureaucrats who are now corrupt CCP officials.

It's been said that ideology is a brain disease. Look to Beijing to witness the evidence and the proof of the fact.

 

RAY GIBBS

9:32 AM ET

October 9, 2010

Dissident's Nuke

burn Baby (internet) burn

 

BOBBY FLETCHER

12:56 PM ET

October 9, 2010

Financial sponsorship proves Liu's foreign agent status

It is a fact Liu Xiaobo's domestic politicl activities, including advocacy to abolish China's constitution in "Charter 08", were financed by the US government.

Kudos to you Nobel Prize. You just gave the peace prize to an American Spy. Liu Xiaobo taking over $650,000 from the US government via the NED is in the public record.

Just check the web archive of NED's China grant publications that's now deleted.

 

ZENBUDDHA77

3:41 PM ET

October 9, 2010

Greetings from the Belly of the Abyss, world!

Feces! If Liu doesn´t like it in China…why doesn´t he move to the United States if he thinks it is so great here? We ONCE had a 100 sq foot free speech area 5 miles from the Republican KKKonventions that nominated George W. Bush who then became president…by loosing two elections. And we have a bigger Cult of Incumbents than the defunct communist party ever had. AND this country rapes more of the world´s resources and causes the greatest amount of terror and unbearable poverty by maintaining more weapons of mass destruction than any other two insane nations on the face of the earth. But that still does not even take into account that this land of ¨freedom¨ has more people in prison…than any other country on the face of the earth.

F*ck idolizing Xiaobo and the Noble Peace Prize! WTF have YOU ever done for world peace, jackass? And to keep everyone in ignorance and from finding out what does not get reported…you are forbidden by the Patriot Act to go ---> http://bramin.wordpress.com/page/2/ !

So don´t say you weren´t warned!

 

EDWARD008

12:20 AM ET

October 12, 2010

THIS IS PART OF THE "TRADE WAR" BETWEEN USA & CHINA

I think everyone knew, awarding Liu Xiao Bo as the Nobel prize winner is part the scenario in shrinking China tremendous achievement in economy.

There are so many people in the world who are far more eligible for the prize, such as those fighting for women right who are not allowed to attend school in some countries, compared to Liu Xiao Bo who is just discontent with his country, the country that was admitted as the most successful country in reducing poverty rate. Please wake up!, what is more important, freedom to speak or reducing poverty, freedom to speak or maintaining National integrity.

Be STRONG China.

 

PUBLICUS

1:59 PM ET

October 30, 2010

800 000 000 Chinese les miserables

There are 800 000 000 Chinese in the PRC/CCP who continue to live in abject poverty, a poverty equal to that of the European Dark Ages and present today in China in the continued extension of the European Dark Ages, i.e., the beliefs and attitudes of the present PRC/CCP. This is an unalterable guarantee of disaster to the PRC/CCP as having so many poor is unchangeable and unsustainable to any country of the world.

Jung Gwo 'national integrity' is to try to maintain its 5000 year old dictatorship and plutocracy, oligarchy, autocracy and corruption of the decrepit ancient world and the past. There is no offer or promise of progressive linear development and advance in the present PRC/CCP extension of the ancient Jung Gwo mentality and attitude of dictatorship and censoring mind control over its population of sheeple.

However, the Jung Gwo now shake our hands instead of demanding arrogantly and futilely that we kow tow to them/you. The times have changed and shall continue to change against the compulsion of the ancient Jung Gwo to perpetuate their reactionary anti democratic attitudes, beliefs, values and systems.

Can you learn? Yes you Jung Gwo can learn as everyone can learn and as you have learned to a certain extent during the past 200 years or so. But the Jung Gwo learn slowly and only after great pain and suffering. That continues to be your burden as the unrealistic, fantasyzing, self delusionary Jung Gwo.

 

COSMICSCIENCE

2:57 AM ET

October 31, 2010

Thoughts after just arguing with my dad back in China about Liu

An hour ago I chat with my Dad back in China. At the end argue with him about Liu XiaoBo. I have to put something in writing, as a small part of personal history, and hopefully influence passionate people to keep perspectives.

I am an ordinary software engineer, who happen to have achieved solid scientific enlightenment from years of interests in universe, evolution, human, society and all of its contradictions. This complex matter of Liu XiaoBo can be clarified somewhat by looking at it from many perspectives.

* From my dad: he hates foreign influence on China, for good reasons: he would had starved to death with my aunt if Japanese did not surrender on time, (that is serious -- that means I would not have existed), and British in HongKong had so many ways to humiliate him. He hates corrupted officials and many decadent social phenomenon. He argues: foreign power use Nobel prize for Liu to harm China again; Liu is bad for the country. My dad does not know what Liu writes. I try to tell him "Liu just wrote something rational like how to elect officials and fire them when they are corrupted, he did not call for arms uprising like Sun Yet Sen (the great revolutionist) did". My dad grew upset and refused to talk to me and ask my mom to take the phone.

* For majority Chinese, they don't know what Liu wrote. They got the news that foreign institutions did something and make the Chinese government look bad, they instinctively feel that foreign powers try to harm China the country, the people, and the national pride. Many (maybe majority) consider Liu is bad for China. Many people got upset (me too) about Liu's argument that longer colonial rule for China would be better off.

* .... Ok, just not enough spaces here to drag out all the observations and reasoning about China. I will try to keep it short on Liu only.

* I had search Liu's Manifesto '08 and think it is very rational expression. Sun Yet Sen's democratic writings (including about Republic of China) have a lot more violent advocacy (overthrow dynasty and its law). Chinese government officially consider Sun YS as one of China's greatest founding father, huge picture of Sun is sometimes hung looking across Mao's in TianAnMen Square.

* I searched his verdict and think it is wrong to jail Liu for his expression.

* I think the nature of chinese political system and Liu's writing and prominence definitely land him in jail.

* I admire Liu's great courage to go to jail.

* Many famous dissidents live outside of China and are living more comfortably than Liu.

* So many histories prove that most great revolutionists are great because they at the least struggle, go to jail, risk their lives INSIDE THEIR COUNTRY they love dearly, reduce association with foreign power. So many Chinese communists did the above and they took power eventually.

* There are not many famous dissidents currently in jail. If someone can give a confirmed list of them and why they are prominent, it would be very good information. -- The evidence is clear, not enough dissidents going to jail, no major changes coming soon.

* I did not reach sound conclusion that Liu deserves Nobel price more than other candidates.

--- got to go sleep now, will continue...

 

COSMICSCIENCE

6:55 PM ET

October 31, 2010

Continue last post

wow, reasoning do take a lot of efforts, here it is:

• Common human survival priorities are: physical safety, food, family, cloth, shelter, physical freedom, basic materials/money, basic dignity, acceptable income and comfort level, dignity and relations with proximate social circle, education … political rights (mostly called as human rights), wealth…

• What is the profile of efforts Chinese institution/media and foreign institution/media spent on relieving China disaster (flood, earthquake, etc.), illiteracy, poverty, human rights, and others? The answers were very clear, foreign interests made great deal of efforts on human rights and at the same time made relatively little efforts to relieve other human suffering. (Charity efforts for a Chinese flood in the 1990s and human right media coverage for a single dissident at the same time clearly told me that many human rights advocates care for political rights more than human life.)

• In many countries, including the all mighty USA, many people have hard time achieving human survival; their human rights do not help their human survival much.

• Chinese government rules in the past 30 years continuously elevated people’s survival level. The government runs economy much better than other populous countries, and it is very strong.

• Most urban Chinese have enjoyable human life and freedoms, they mostly do not dare to make political advocacy in press and organization, but Chinese have freedom making political criticism verbally, often in public restaurants, it is happening widely every day. Now you know how smart the government is.

• Political rights for Chinese would mostly be gained by most Chinese fighting for it vigorously and persistently. If they do not want to risk their survival priorities, they would not gain political rights easily. Historical Chinese revolutions won or lost mostly because people fought for basic survival.

• Chinese people know that historically foreign powers harmed and robbed China.

• It is a scientific statistics that people in different countries often distrust and fight each other. That is one aspect of nationalism.

• When foreign institutions fight for Chinese political rights but not other human survival priorities, it inflicts damages to Chinese government and collateral damages to China and people. So this becomes a nationalism issue, leaving little improvement to actual political rights in China.

• From my observation, I can confidently declare that foreigners are more idealistic than Chinese. Foreigners cannot stand the fact that their idealistic notion of human rights is constantly challenged by Chinese government. Foreigners mostly care less for Chinese human survival, and even care less for the actual progress in political rights.

• My opinion: only Chinese themselves can fight for actual political rights progress, foreigners make little progress in Chinese political rights and make damages on other areas, invoking nationalism. Nobel Peace award is an act made by foreigners. Scientifically speaking, such fights between countries will go on forever.

• Scientifically, a creature’s foremost concern is his survival. I advocate that when a person only care for his survival and did not harm others, he has the right not to be shamed by others, and shall be proud of his survival.

• Liu shall be freed and will be freed sooner than 10 years. I greatly admire his courage, considering I do not have the courage. I am a Chinese American and an intelligent human, I am proud of the fact that I and my love ones maintain a normal human survival, and I am doing more scientific and social advocacy, in this little dot of the universe.

-- Living with clear perspectives makes life more fulfilling ;-)