Big Think in the censorship business: Big Brother and 'Orwellian Rules of Writings'

NEW YORK - BIG THINK censors censorship article, suppresses unpleasant research: http://www.east-west-dichotomy.com/big-think-censorship-censors-orwellian-rules-of-writing-at-the-new-york-times/ #bigthink #nytimes #orwell #china

Article on US media censorship (style guides still advise: avoid foreign words) taken down by Big Think. Account closed. Profile deleted. Twitter blogged. More like Big Brother:

Critique of the NY Times's practice of Orwellian Rules of Writing and institutionalized suppression of foreign terms apparently isn't tolerated in New York media circles. New York Big Think, the knowledge platform, engaged in revisionism, took down the article, closed the long-time contributor's account, and terminated his profile. Censorship is wrong!

Philosopher Bazon Brock on the Hypocrisy in Western Media (MUST WATCH)

"The disgrace of 1989, 1991 (the fall of the Soviet Union), is that we thought we could do away with reality: Anything goes. We'll do what we want. The world is ours. They can do shit. We are doing the globalization. We are forcing anyone to submit to our point of view. And don't they ever dare to..." --Bazon Brock, philosopher

[GO TO QUOTE I]

Happy times with Xu Guangqi and the MPG-CAS Scientists at PICB in Shanghai 2007

SHANGHAI - 今年是徐光启和意大利人利玛窦合作翻译的《几何原本》中文版出版400周年，为纪念这一重要历史事件，中国科学院、上海市徐汇区人民政府、中国科学院上海生命科学研究院联合发起纪念徐光启的活动，于10月14日至19日由我所承办“徐光启《几何原本》中文译本出版400周年纪念会暨《计算生物学中的异同》国际学术研讨会”。来自德国、法国、英国、意大利、日本、韩国、美国、中国等国家，涵盖数学、天文、农业、社会学等研究领域的近30位科学家共聚上海，与上海地区的学生们一起，纪念徐光启的科学贡献，探讨现代前沿科学。这是国内首次举办国际性的徐光启纪念活动。[...]

作者：Susan Xu    新闻时间：2007-10-17
Source: http://www.picb.ac.cn/picb-dynamic/Desktop/news/news.jsp?ID=110&ntype=institute

Why is the US media so afraid of Chinese words?

Daniel A Bell, the China professor at Tsinghua University, had a golden opportunity, I claim, to break through the wall of ignorance about China and to inform the US public, which still believes that learning a foreign language is a character flaw, or even a job killer, about the most important Chinese key terminologies in political theory. You know. The names the Chinese gave to their political ideas, movements, and brands.

But no! This is The New York Times. In here we use clean and pure English, the only language that matters in the world.

If you disagree, well, you won't get published. Not in journals, not in magazines, and certainly not in The New York Times which practices Orwellian Rules of Writing -meaning that its writers will avoid foreign words and find English replacement for them.

Remember the stories from the old days in America when colored people were not supposed to sit in a public bus together with whites because it looked so unpleasant to the white man's eyes?  Well, same with words: if they are foreign, that means they also look unpleasant to the white man's eyes. No differences. Same prejudices.

I love it when stupid Americans tell me that New York is so multicultural, when in fact it is full of Americans. America may have fought for racial equality, but they are intolerant toward those foreign terms. Avoid foreign words. Write English.

Imagine an op-ed article in The Times sprinkled with Hexie Shehui, Si Ge Quan Mian, or Zhongguo Meng. Those editors would feel insulted. Do you expect us to look this shit up in a dictionary? Yes, because it is Chinese. But I don't know Chinese. Exactly. So keep that in mind when writing a piece on a people who don't quite yet understand. Otherwise, if he simple used English words for Chinese ideas, the piece would read like the usual NY Times report: talking down on them as if a viceroy explaing

Isn't the world insulting to Americans? All those crazy languages. And we forbid them in our classrooms, papers, publishers, and academia. No big deal. If you have a great idea, I will find an appropriate English name for it. This will make it easier for me to define your idea for our audiences. Yes, I stole your idea, basically. But, hey, there's no such things as intellectual property theft in China, right? Anyway, we Westerners do this for the last 350 years: translating Chinese words into what we already know.
No wonder that nobody in American wants to study a foreign language any more. It's like a handicap in the professional world. Yes, you can talk to Chinese in the streets, but not use Chinese words in your writing career. It's worse than racism.

What's the point if you learn Chinese but will never be given the opportunity to use it, as all major Western schools, media, publishers, and universities practice Orwellian Rules of Writings in order to keep their China reports "Chinese-free" - pure, clean, and unpolluted?

The New York Times, a US corporation dressed as global public service, is perhaps the most notorious offender to the world's languages, cultures, and foreign people. All its writers and editors, letting alone outside contributors, are forced to "avoid foreign words" whenever they can in order to keep the sovereignty over the definition of thought. It's like saying to Russian, Iranian, German, Indian writers and thinkers: you may express your ideas but it must be in OUR VOCABULARIES, thereby effectively committing cultural intellectual property theft. It's the old imperial codex of "It's knowledge only if we know it" -meaning in practice that unless a Westerner said it and named it, as far as our media and the academia are concerned, foreigners have no ideas, concepts, and categories. Certainly no ideas, concepts, and categories that are worth reporting by their correct names.

Here's another gem of violent 'language imperialism' by a 'China professor', Daniel A. Bell, who in order to get published in The New York Times prostrates himself not only to Western values but also to the NY Times racial language policy to omitting the correct Chinese terms and names, thus keeping his China report purposely "Chinese-free".

If I was a student of Dr Bell at Tsinghua University, I would ask myself "what's the point of studying Chinese when the heights in my future career as a China Expert will be directly proportioned to me not having to write Chinese words at all. As a commentator on Nazi propaganda during the Third Reich once observed: People, if it looks like propaganda, that's because it is propaganda. It's one thing to forbid yellow people riding a public bus, and a similar thing to forbid them their words, names, and brands.

I am all for inclusion of foreign cultures -their originality, ideas, and inventions- into World History.

The New York Times, which conspired in most US wars during its long history, and which promotes US Empire and Americanization throughout the world (of which brutal Anglophone language policies are an essential part) thinks that white Western men and their white vocabulary policies and Orwellian rules of writing should dictate what US citizens read and hear about foreign lands.

Daniel A. Bell had a golden opportunity, I claim, to break through the walls of media racism and ignorance and inform the US public and those Anglophone wankers in Asia who refuse to learn the local languages because their media implies them not to, about certain Chinese key terminologies that are essential to understand China and to honor and respect its ideas, its culture, and its thought. But no, Dr Bell bowed down to Empire. Think about this for a moment: A China Expert on China writes a China piece without using a single Chinese term! 

I felt like watching tortured Peeta Mellark in the Hunger Games confessing on the nation's First propaganda channel that all resistance to Empire was futile and that the revolution must stop. No Chinese words when you explain Chinese ideas to us! We are the masters. It is the Chinese who have to learn English. Hundreds of his students must feel betrayed and let down by this Dr Bell: "Fuck you China. Fuck you Tsinghua University. In the end, the West will rule here anyway, so you better forget your culture and language and do it like I professor do: write Chinese-free China op-eds for the NY Times!" 

No wonder that American students don't want to study foreign languages any more. They won't be allowed to use foreign words anyway later in their professional careers in the media and writing business. America may say all it wants about how it battled slavery and racism - violent culturism is still in full swing.

During the last 350 years of Western China Studies, most 'China Experts' agreed that China has no originality, no intellect, and no reason. That is because they never allowed or permitted Chinese ideas, brands, and thought to exists in Western media, papers, and textbooks. There was always some lazy and convenient Western translation. Incorrect? Sure. Misleading? Always. But it helped the West to expand its control over Eastern thought, with the result that even today Asians will have to study their own Asian cultures in Western universities. The other side of the coin is that white Western masters in Asia can live as gods -as long as they play their part and assimilate and adjust as little as possible to China and the Chinese language. They day Westerners use Chinese terminologies in their China reports, is the day Westerners will have to come to China, the original place and the owner of the intellectual property so to speak. And that day all those Western 'China Experts' will lose prestige and status. 

We can know what they think by applying our own Western categories and concepts to it. It's the same easy-peasy formula that helped the Western powers dominate Asia during the ages of colonialism. In fact, the NY Times has not evolved a bit since then in its treatment of foreign words: out and away with foreign pollution.

A China without Chinese. That's what Washington wants to hear. That's what Western corporations and think tanks what to hear. That's what Western universities want to hear. China is supposed to completely 'Westernize'. The less we have to deal with Chinese elements in our lives the better. Certainly, if we can censor all Chinese words in US publications, that will help a great deal in keeping those non-Western people and their ideas out of our heads.

Is the omission of Chinese words and concepts "correct scholarship"? No. Is it the "correct names"? No. What is it? It is bullshit. It is patronizing educated US readers who, I claim, wouldn't mind to look up a foreign term they didn't know, or even to study a foreign concept just a little more. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the problem is with the self-absorbed, political motivated, and agenda-driving NY Times journalists, editors, and owners who feel shamed and intimidated by people telling them about foreign cultures, things that they had no way of knowing about before. This would greatly offend their egos, and rob them of all their pretensions as intellectual giants (the arrogance and self-importance of NY Times people is legendary). They must write their reports on foreign lands from a position of the highest authority, like galactic overseers and masters of the universe. Chinese (or any other foreign terms) would make them look tiny and little and non-experts on things that are clearly not their territory. Therefore, writing from that position of the highest authority would make them look what? Stupid and preposterous. They just can't have that. They must never give away their privileges of censoring and omitting inconvenient foreign words. A cheap English translation will do the trick all the time.

I know for sure that one day, after this current Cult of China Experts is long gone, and a new generation of tolerant, broad-minded, and honest scholars and journalists is emerging that will be able to put an end to the constant NY Times's misreporting on Chinese policies. This new generation of scholars and journalists will fight and hopeful limit or destroy the unfair use of bogus English translations just to get published. The will fight the inequality of words and vocabularies like we fought the inequalities of the races and genders. But, most importantly, the new generation of China scholars and journalists will enlightening the world community about the US media's unfair treatment of China (and most non-Western nations really) that poisoned the wells and crept the rats out of pan-America.

Down with English translations of Chinese key terminologies!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffT_eaVhqUA

@NYtimes BUSTED Daniel A Bell #censored #westernvalues

Thorsten J. Pattberg‏@TJPattberg

@NYtimes BUSTED #racism #China hi @comradewong @chubailiang https://youtu.be/ffT_eaVhqUA  via @YouTube @NYTFriedman

Racism and Anti-China Policies at The New York Times

“Your students, Professor Bell, are all secretly reading Dr. Pattberg‘s essays on the liberalization of Chinese terminologies.” 

Daniel A. Bell, a professor of “political theory” (which really is the theory of power relations) at China’s Tsinghua University, is NOT helping correct scholarship, I claim, by prostrating himself before The New York Times‘s ‘Orwellian Rules of Writing’, and by (repeatedly)submitting China op-eds that are virtually, I mean linguistically and culturally, “Chinese-free”. {GO TO VIDEO}

Pattberg: O culto aos 'especialistas em China' (Pravda.RU)

PEQUIM - Há alguns anos, encontrei um alemão, em Harvard, que se vangloriava do próprio 'engajamento' na luta política, de uma palestra que daria em New York City, de como trabalhava duro a favor da liberdade para o Tibete e sanções contra a China. Que não havia direitos humanos na China - ensinou-me ele. Fiquei impressionadíssimo. Alertei-o para que não fizesse nada daquilo contra o nosso governo alemão, porque poderia ser condenado por traição. O homem balançou a cabeça com ar de profundo desprezo pela minha falta de fé democrática. 

Não é o único. Há um culto a intelectuais evangelizadores anti-China, no Ocidente, aqueles arrogantes cruzados determinados a construir golpes nas mais diferentes nações não ocidentais e usurpar quaisquer governos democráticos. 

Sobre a China, agem e falam como se estivessem acima da lei. Isso, porque entendem que o governo chinês seria corrupto, não eleito e comunista, vale dizer, ilegítimo. Assim sendo, por que alguém teria de respeitar o que a China faz, defende ou propõe? Além do mais, esses intelectuais evangelizadores pró-ocidente acham que ocidentais podem fazer o que bem entendam contra a China, porque os EUA comandam todo o aparelho de comunicação-propaganda 'midiática', o que sempre os salvará de qualquer dificuldade, caso haja. 

Os tais ditos 'especialistas' em China são hoje uma força política que faz oposição direta ao Partido Comunista. Formam ninhos e redes, com hierarquia muito forte e rígido código de ética: todos se autoelogiam uns os outros, 'retuítam' tuítes uns dos outros, fazem propaganda dos livros uns dos outros, e castigam furiosamente todos os 'traidores', que chamam de "elogiadores da China". 

Quando Yang Rui, âncora de um noticiário na rede CCTV, condenou as atividades de estrangeiros em Pequim, foi vítima de assassinato de reputação e, na sequência, mostrado por 'especialistas em China', em todo o ocidente, como exemplo do que acontece a quem se atreva a defender a China. 

No ocidente, grupos extremistas estrangeiros, de direita ou de esquerda, são atentamente monitorados e controlados. Mas que ninguém se atreva a controlar os imperialistas ocidentais. Alemães financiam separatistas chineses em Xinjiang; norte-americanos financiam separatistas no Tibete. Empresas da imprensa norte-americana até deslocam seus 'militantes' para Hong Kong, decididas a derrubar Xi Jinping, o presidente, a mulher dele e toda sua família. [...]

[CONTINUE AT PRAVDA.RU]

Pattberg: 西媒都是垃圾

西媒都是垃圾: