- Registration time
- Last login
- Online time
- 71 Hour
- Reading permission
For decades now the pan-European west has been telling the rest the world what to do. The west has benefited from armed conflicts throughout the rest of the world, many of which were stirred up by the west itself. The west has also supported terrorist regimes, except the term 'terrorist' only applies when the victims are white. For example, the French supported the Rwanda dictator who carried out the atrocious genocide, and the Brits supported both the Nigerian dictator and militia leaders so that they could sell arms to both sides; the victims of both cases are not white, therefore these are not described as terrorist incidents in the white people media. Today, it seems more justified for the west to try to stop the Iranian nuclear program than it was so for the world's environmental groups to stop France from testing its nuclear bombs in the South Pacific in the early 90s.|
So how does west create the illusion that all its wrong doings seem morally and legally justified? The answer lies in the so-called "freedom of speech," which is an overrated concept that only applies to the white majorities. Governments of the west have learned that by giving the people a false sense of economic security, the people will not challenge the power of the ruling party. The contingency plan, to be employed when unemployment rate is high and when people are struggling maintain their illusion of wealth, is to blame everything on the minority populations and immigrants of racial minorities. So how do western European governments achieve this? They do so by selectively allowing "freedom to speech" to be applicable to certain issues, and never to others. For example, it is free to use freedom of speech as a pretext to molest the spiritual leader of the Muslim minorities (Danish Jylland-Posten's Mohammed cartoon); but the same concept of freedom of speech that is so righteously applied to the blemishing of the Mohammed the Prophet cannot be applied to the mocking of the Nazi.
Much of the westernization that goes on in most of the world was initiated by force and coercion. Lately, western governments have learned that soft power can do the job just as well, but in order for western-style consumerism to enter the closed regimes, the west must first introduce (by force) the so-called freedom of speech, which has ironically come back to haunt them on their own continent. China is in the position to benefit from this. China should do so by continuing to strengthen its ties with countries terrorized by the west, such as Zimbabwe, Sudan, Venezuela, Iran, and the entire Middle East. To mirror this development internally, China should also allow greater religious freedom, especially for the Islamic believers in the country. Although this might come in conflict with China's territorial integrity, I'm sure there are clever ways to resolve the differences. China has the power to change the world organically, instead of hostile take-overs. There's nothing humanitarian about western expasionism, the west has and will continue to create conflicts in many parts of world so that they can use their resources for cheap. China, on the other hand, uses a gentle integrating approach, the result of which is a win-win situation. Therefore, the world will be a better place with western influence being kept at a minimum, thanks to China's rise.
[ Last edited by twchinese at 2006-2-9 04:01 AM ]