Modern day China is a land of immense opportunity- a country that will surprise, enthuse, annoy and charm; a place many new things must be learned and, equally importantly, many unlearnt.

The Country.

Looking at China today we see the world’s second economy and -arguably, the most influential market today. China’s growth and wealth has assured rescue plans all over the world and is becoming increasingly important in calming our global economy. Yet, at the same time; China is not the international player Japan (previously the biggest economy in Asia) once was. China’s presence on the world stage is rather more subtle; there are (almost) no big Chinese brands of importance and Chinese investments in (Western) companies (or governments) are received with a certain level of suspicion -and thus not very widely reported.

Business.

When looking at the development of the Chinese domestic market we see interesting patterns developing and (slowly) emerging. But let’s take it from the beginning.

In recent years, talk of China (in the socioeconomic sense) has almost always covered cheap labour and bad products – essential elements that defined ‘the factory of the world’. What is often forgotten is the fact that China has a civil history older than that of all of the Western countries- it is a country with a long, rich history of culture, art, music, and poetry. For a large part of the last two millennia China was the world’s largest economy. Only in the later stages of the Qing Dynasty (1644 – 1912) did this country’s economic development slow down, which, combined with Europe’s rapid development during and after the Industrial Revolution, let the latter surpass China.

Today the Chinese government has implemented a program that is aimed at elevating the country from a low-cost production economy to a high-tech innovation driven economy. If the last 3 decades of Chinese development are indicative of what the future might bring, the ‘traditional’ high-tech countries would do well to gear up and prepare themselves for competition.

Add to this the fact of China’s recent increase in urbanization. Currently (according the 2010 census) China boasts 160 cities with a population over 1 million people. To put that into perspective, the Benelux has (if one measures by actual city borders): zero. The size of China’s urban middle class was about 230 million people in August 2011, or 37% of the total urban population -coming from 80 million in 2007, forecast to be 700 million in 2015 and expected to hit 1.4 billion in 2030. This is about 100% of the entire population of current day Europe.

Obviously, this will attract many people looking to make a quick buck. Yet, looking at examples in the last 10 years, we see that ‘a quick buck’ in China is often short lived and detrimental with regards to your ROI and brand value in the long run.

Coming here.

So what does starting a company in China entail? There are many different elements in the equation that need to be given some (and some a little more) thought. For instance, what does the government have in store for that particular industry, or indeed, all of the industries? Have a look at the latest 5 year plan the Party published (KPMG has published a fairly decent summary). Here you will be able to find leads with regards to subsidies that might be available, and let it be known, that there are many. These subsidies may be related to the industry of interest, but might as well be related to where the government wants to develop a region and how they wish to (financially) stimulate companies to locate there.

These are only some of the elements that come into play when starting a business in China. What is often overlooked is the sheer amount of options available and how important it is to understand the steps that need to be taken in order to file all correct documents, in the correct manner, with the right people. There are several organizations that can help you do so- your local chambers of commerce being the starting point most likely. It is also advisable to get in contact with a good local accountancy and have a localized lawyer look into the company structure and administration plans- they have a thorough understanding of the local market and requirements and will thus be able to give correct advise and help avoid tax or regulatory problems.

This has very little to do with your own business, marketing or brand so far. Yet, these steps are incredibly important with regards to the circumstances and ‘Umwelt’ you are creating for your company; these steps will help you to be sure you ‘understand’ what you are walking into and how you can make this potentially highly rewarding endeavor as smooth as possible. Once you’re ready and set is when the fun begins.

Market.

How will you tap into this wealth of new eager consumers? In deciding where to establish a business it might not be a bad idea to look into the local consumer- what are their patterns and desires? What is the cultural orientation with regards to certain products and services and how well integrated is the use of social media? These are important indicators of what will work and what will not, in terms of communication and brand strategy.

A key fact that must be kept at the forefront of your thoughts, is that despite the current run on the ‘Chinese consumer’, this consumer is still very much undefined and diffused, at best. China, in all its splendor and sheer size, is still a country with one dominant ethnic group; the Han Chinese. Yet, the Han-Chinese are an ethnic group that has become an amalgam over time, and is comprised of hundreds of different ethnic groups. Many of these have different cultural interpretations and dialects – thus, different consumers all across the board.

The 1st and 2nd tier cities in China are highly competitive marketplaces, where everybody is fighting for the same pie and many of pieces have been given away already. Is being in Beijing or Shanghai really necessary? Or is this choice driven by ‘this sounds right’? Because it might not be.

Some argue that focus groups and quantitative research are the best way to create a solid business strategy. Certainly, this is a good place to start. Yet, in a marketplace that changes as rapidly as China’s, do not rely on research only. When you focus purely on what people might be thinking today, you’ll have already lost the battle for tomorrow.

A brand that leads and is relevant to people will always be more successful then a brand that follows.

The Chinese consumer is quickly catching up. They know what is going on and they know what they want. They are highly status-oriented and very willing to share their brand preferences. While in Europe ‘showing off’ the brands that you care about is increasingly becoming an act that is frowned upon (in terms of FMCG’s) in China it is called ‘shi’ (which means ‘shining’) and is one of the favorite pastimes of the generation Y consumer.

With the rise in quality of life in China, we also see an increase in the demand for more security- not only in terms of the protection insurance of oneself or ones possessions, but more importantly, in the demand for clean drinking water, safe food, energy and clean air. For those of us from Western backgrounds, these are all things that we take for granted as being ‘normal’. Yet with the rapid developments over the past few decades and subsequent increase in energy use, food consumption and urbanization, these are now genuine concerns for the Chinese consumer and they are increasingly vocal about it. Consequently, the government has been sure to stimulate the reduction of energy use, the reorganization of the agricultural industry and to install incentives for clean(er) technologies.

This also presents an enormous opportunity. The clean tech industry is heavily subsidized, and building using technologies that will increase sustainability will be heavily subsidized according to the 12th 5-year plan. Currently China is the world’s greatest investor in these kinds of technologies, and is spending 1 in the 3 dollars they spend on defense on clean energy development, as opposed to the USA’s 1 in 54 dollars.

This is also a good indication of what will be top of mind in the Chinese consumer in the decade to come.

At times, the average Gen-Y/Millennial/Digital Native might feel somewhat lost with regards to what is happening in the world and how we can find our piece of that world to truly make our own. We live in a world where we all have our own respective podiums in social media. Our connectedness is -historically seen; unprecedented, while our know-how on world-affairs and ability to deal with information surpasses that of the average computer from the year we were born. (This is an aesthetic argument, don’t quote me on that)

But do we still have the context necessary to put ‘life’ into perspective?

Our education focuses all it’s effort on helping us become valued contributors in a (semi-)liberal market economy. It, unfortunately, doesn’t give us any scope or insight in how this market-driven world works and what it’s consequences are on the larger reality of life. And, increasingly, we see our education become irrelevant in what we end up doing, how we do it -and most importantly; why we do it.

But how is that related to progress?

My question exactly. When I hear talk of progress and I watch the news, and see it related only to economical/financial news, hardly any mention of health, the state of nature, bio-diversity, quality of food, or -dare I say; quality of life. But what of the increasing inequality both abroad and at home? What of cuts on education-budgets? (Which could prove to be a push towards out-of-school education in relation with the ever increasing amount of stored knowledge in 1′s and 0′s and alternative platforms for education arising.) Then I haven’t mentioned the increasing amount of people on either uppers or downers, increasing obesity in kids, rising prices of food, increase in gen-modified foods which haven’t been very extensively researched, (Don’t mind me, I am aware of the possibility of genmod’s ending up as the only option to feed the world at some point, I don’t know, but I find the code-of-conduct of -for instance, Monsanto, not very heart-winning.) What about the rising nationalistic sentiment in countries all over the world? (Most visibly in the ‘developed western world’.) How do these elements tie into what we have coined progress?

The negativity that is projected on society, is taking its toll on people’s imagination, creativity, hope and even love. I feel we are wasting human potential. Might it be an idea to use the second wave of the Information Era in order to self-organise? To try; city by city, community by community, school by school, market by market, brand by brand, push towards a frame-work for society that re-institutes a societal-fabric that allows for an engaged and responsible paradigm for policy-making, business ethics, educational models and media-platforms.

I feel the current ‘trend’ around sustainability might allow us to renew the frame-works and incentives in which we work and live. It can function to re-trace the current consumption/waste model (in every aspect of society). I also feel (and some might perceive this to be ignorant, but the belief is fueled by the people I keep on meeting even as I have now moved to the boiler-room of capitalism that is Shanghai) that business (brands) can (and must?) take a leading role in the development of these systems and enable people to articulate their ideas and suggestions for code-of-conduct, policy and different ways of consumption.

Talk about stuff like this with your friends or random strangers you meet on the street of cities you have never before visited or with trees or your grandmother or your colleague and your sister and mother too. Or not. Suit yourself.

I’m just saying that if the rest of the world is doing well, chances are likely you will be too.

Happy hunting.

Love, L

We live in perilous times. As Noam Chomsky answered the question: “But why do you seem angry when you talk about state of affairs in the World?” He simply said; “Because I look at the world.” There’s nothing dystopian or negative about that, and I can’t disagree. Not only from a humanitarian point of view, as currently every day there are still 16,000 children per day dying of hunger-related issues. But also from an economic point of view as currently the entire world has an accumulated public debt of $39,033,246,601,204 (and counting at a rate of millions per minute, please check the Economists’ counter).

To clarify the above (economical) point; in the Netherlands every single citizen has a debt of $29,801,30, in the US this is $26,361,70, Italy $41,115,71 and in China $643,17. This, I might add is a mostly artificially maintained debt as centralised banks runs the money supply and thereby control scarcity.

But that’s not my point, because I’m not an economist nor do I aspire to be.

What I’m here to put forward is that business will be a more fundamental instrument in the changes I believe we need to see within our societies at large. Business is judged on a day-to-day basis, and increasingly less on the product and more on the experience that is offered by any particular brand. Time has become the most valuable resource of the Western world and if you as a company/brand wish to take some from me you’ll have to be damn creative and offer me something that makes me feel I have point one gained ‘something’, I can share this with someone (you’ll need to enable me to do so), that does not negatively impact the planet (or any creatures upon it; people and planet before profit) and most importantly, you’ll have to be honest, because if you’re not, I’ll tell everyone.

That on the other hand doesn’t mean you’ll have to be perfect, nobody is, but tell us what it is that you wish to improve on and perhaps we can help you, if you ask us nicely.

My generation, is being catagorised as Generation G, Generation Y and Millennials. What makes us different to all consumers you’ve had to entice with your stuff , services or status you have marketed for us before; is that we don’t really care about what you think about yourself (no matter how loud you shout). Nor do we fit in either of the categorisations X’ers have devised for themselves to make sense of it all. Our generation is the most heterogeneous, racially and ethnically diverse, liberal and informed, the world has ever seen and we are currently 25% of US population, over 50% of the middle east and also make up about 50% of China’s workforce.

We care about how you are relevant to our lives, how you will help us in the uphill battle we are faced with in terms of the ecological, societal and financial issues. Our future is tainted with issues surrounding; energy in the broadest sense, unsustainable financial structures, inadequate governance, agricultural industrialisation and declining eco-diversity (which we know is vital for planetary balance), increased natural activity, and failing educational systems.

But we are also very hopeful and reward brands that approach the world the way we like it and show empathic behaviour.

Just some numbers from Trendwatching.com

• 71% of people “make it a point to buy brands from companies whose values are similar to my own.” (Source: Young & Rubicam, August 2010.)
• In 2006, ‘strong financial performance’ was the third most important factor for US consumers in determining corporate reputation. By 2010, financial returns had fallen to the bottom of Edelman’s rankings, while ‘transparent and honest practices’ and ‘company I can trust’ were the two most important. (Source: Edelman Trust Barometer, 2010.)
• 87% of UK consumers expect companies to consider societal interests equal to business interests, while 78% of Indian, 77% of Chinese and 80% of Brazilian consumers prefer brands that support good causes. (Source: Edelman, November 2010.)

As you see our outlook on the world leads us to make choices that take the ‘grander scheme of things’ into consideration. And you can help us in doing so. And if you do so, we’ll tell our friends whom we listen to for advice (as well as our parents by the way, for instance; my dad stopped drinking diet-coke -I got him researching aspartame).

Your task is to give us the platform and tools upon/with which we can show support for the (social) objectives you have chosen to work on, if you do so, we’ll help you achieve them.

Game on.

Peace, L

In business this would cost you your reputation, turnover, agility with regards to technological development, and thus eventually your entire business. Governments so far are lucky as they are not (yet) going bankrupt (despite the economic reality in which several governments are operating) and can continue to ‘work’ because we seem to be holding on to the idea that the democratic-process will and can bring change.

I’m not entirely sure on that one frankly, but let’s wait and see.

What I am rather sure of is the increasing role of platforms in our lives. Platforms that deal with ways to engage with the enormous amount of information we are faced with on a daily basis. We live in a time where the question of; “What is relevant and how does it impact my life?” will be more frequently asked than ever before in the history of our species.

And thus, companies will have to ask themselves how they can be relevant to their consumers.

Google and Twitter jumped to the mark by opening up a phone-to-twitter phone line when they saw the reaction of their users toward what was happening in Egypt. Doing the same they do here, using a mix and match of ‘old’ and ‘new’ technology; enabling the masses.

Whatever you might think of Wikipedia, Twitter, Google, Huffington Post, Mashable, Wikileaks or Facebook; what they do, is creating relevant information for people when and where they want it, it enables them to connect with like-minded individuals, share the information they want to share and allows them to ‘follow’ people they like, think are interesting or the opposite of the two.

So how is this relevant to brands?

Let me show you an example by Greenpeace, who seem on the right track but just missed out on one part in my humble opinion; true engagement.

Their old Rainbow Warrior (1957) has sailed the oceans and will now be put to rest. So they wanted to build a new one. One that holds Greenpeace’ values high and can be seen as a boat with which they will fight the necessary fights over the well-being of the ocean in the future. But Greenpeace is an NGO and gets most of its money from individual donations. So they launched a (very good-looking) campaign (A New Warrior) to try to get people to donate money for the continuation of the Rainbow Warrior saga.

In this quest they have launched a website that enables you to look at the blueprint, construction schedule, progress so far, a donation ‘wall’ (which will be realised on the boat as well) and buying necessities for the boat like a GPS, life-boat, couch or an electronic steering-wheel. Which is a great idea I find.

But why do it halfheartedly? Why not empower the people -who are literally the lifeblood of your organisation, to have a say after they gave you a part of their resources? There are tons of ways to get people more actively engaged with Greenpeace’s cause when you give them the opportunity to do so and become true ambassadors of your cause. Give them the tools they need and they will do the task at hand and help you reach the goals you have been working hard to reach for the last 40 years (congrats Greenpeace btw, and thanks for doing what you do).

Examples? Ok.

Give ‘them’ (the people who invested in your organisation) a say in your agenda by enabling them to co-decide on the course of the boat they ‘co-own’. Greenpeace provides them with a list of possible cases and background info on these cases and let them decide. Surely, this brings a lot of potential ‘unknowns’ into the equation, but it will most definitely lead to higher involvement and commitment to your organisation.This will also lead to them telling their friends about it which will lead to more relevance to their friends (someone I know did this and that) and thereby a bigger crowd for your message.

What does this mean for the organisation? In Greenpeace’s case it would mean they would become a ‘research and execution’ platform with a following of highly involved people supporting their goal and protecting their interest. Which is a great thing to be I’d say. You can’t sink a rainbow -type deal.

There are lots of possibilities for ‘non-NGO’ organisations to engage with their ‘eco-system’ / ‘tribe’  / ‘crowd’ / ‘consumers’ in such a way, yet it seems that we aren’t quite there yet. If I’m honest I see opportunities like these in child-care (yeah really, so much to be won there), for Innocent Drinks, Amnesty International (I know it’s an NGO, but I like them), Simple Shoes, the Cradle to Cradle organisation, Williams F1 Triodos Bank and We Generate (last two are Dutch). Just to name a few.

Peace.

I’ve started calling it the second wave due to the fact that the Industrial Revolution was divided into two parts. Part One was about the discovery of technology itself, the incredible efficiency of which humans all of a sudden seemed capable of in terms of production.

Part Two came when we started using these discoveries for exploration (physically as well as imaginary) and increasing connectivity between people and places. This resulted in developments such as railroads, the combustion engine and steamboats.

I feel the same has been happening in our Information Age. Despite the fact that it is not called a revolution (but than again maybe that’s more constructive), our world has drastically changed in the last 15 years. My parents, who have grown up with television being a new development, are now checking their email on their HTC and iPhone and are ‘friends’ of mine on Facebook. When at a party with friends, we switch seamlessly between playing someone’s own tunes (made on a music-software downloadable for free), to iTunes, to Spotify, someone’s iPhone, and on to the good old record-player, playing punk from the 70′s, skipping cd’s.

Let me elaborate on my (non-academic) theory of ‘the second wave’.

We are currently finding ourselves in a world which, through technological development, has brought us all so close together, it fits into our pockets. The start of Facebook (biography) and Hyves (Dutch, interview with founder), LinkedIn (interview with founder) in 2004 and the acceptance of Wikipedia as a trustworthy source of knowledge followed by the increased use (and importance) of social media in the media landscape. I believe this is the start of this second wave.

From the start of ARPANET to the point of acceptance of TCP/IP as the standard for ‘the internet’ (a term coined in december 1974), I think we can term this period (74-79) as the start of the Information Era.

What happened in the following decades is the kind of development one also sees when you start living with someone. Remarkable beauty, small irritations, inspiration, resistance of giving up certain boundaries, and slowly but surely a deeper integration of social structures of two entities.

With the arrival of the bigger social media platforms and the enormous flow of information we thereby started to release about ourselves, every social dynamic changes. An example thereof was my post about a guest-lecture by Hill & Knowlton, which got me in the picture with their marketing director and eventually led to being offered a traineeship with them (WPP). Or my friend Omar who after our adventure with Mr. Branson decided to start his platform for ambitious people which now scores over 10K hits a month. Or, Bas Grasmayer who before he finished his thesis became a blogger with Techdirt on future of the music industry.

We have reached a point in which media -and consequently the information-flow it creates, is now so dominant in how we live our lives that it has started to reflect in the ‘grander scheme of things’ in a way never imagined.

It started with WikiLeaks, it went on to bring over a 100,000 students to London in a protest against educational cuts and has now claimed to be the driving force behind the current uprisings in the Arabic world, whereby the happenings in Egypt were even baptised a ‘Twitter revolution’. Which is a ridiculous statement if you’d ask me. (As most of the communication took place through a muslim dating site, if I’m informed correctly.)

People, are waking up. People -quite possibly spurred by their knowledge of what is going on through the increasing amount of information and their increased ability of communication, feel more connected and are thus willing to risk more for what we here in the west consider ‘normal’.

So now what?

We have the power to re-structure and conceptualise the world. It will take a lot of bright minds, positive attitudes and the willingness to look out for others as you would for yourself. But as a civilian, consumer, parent, student, friend and lover, your every move has the potential to reach millions. What if we would rethink our use of the tools now so readily and freely available and decide to use it in a constructive, collaborative manner that enables us to take out the corrupt elements of our societies and create a more equal and honest playing field? Whereby responsibility for other human beings and the planet that gives us all this splendour, is made the highest good?

A small example is the accumulation of what we now call Wikipedia, the creation of Wikipedia cost 2,000,000 hours to build and is watched by 400,000,000 people every month. Which sounds like a lot but if you put that against the 4 hours of TV the average US citizen, day whom count about 300,000,000, watches every, it’s not that hard a sum to make.

Point being, we can together, tackle the problems of global warming, inequality, poverty and rising food-prices. All it takes is cooperation. Because whether or not we like it, and whether or not we feel it, we live on a planet that has X amount of space and X amount of resources which all of us need to sustain ourselves.

This vid might come off to some as a bit revolutionary (and fiction regardless), but the fact that Jullian Assange is being sued for a rape-charge, US trying to get bio-metric information on UN-diplomats and more of this kind of stuff; might lead one to perhaps -just maybe, start re-thinking their view of government (democratic government sorry) as a concept.

In my little country we have (now confirmed) stored ‘nukes’ for our friendly ally America.

We also have a man (who is now Minister of Economy, Agriculture and Innovation) who, before heading into office for his first term (as Minister of Foreign Affairs) felt the urge to ‘consolidate’ his standing with several US diplomats. I find it rather strange that; looking at the controversy regarding US foreign policy, a lot -if not all, politicians still seem to think there’s a need for ‘checking-in’ with this country.

This is also the same man who replied my tweet asking him to lobby for a stop of arms supply to Israel by the US during the last ‘Intifada’; “Sarcasm will not help the people of Israel & Palestine.”

I’m rather sure weapons don’t either.

What we are witnessing is the crumbling of an Empire. If you think I’m confused, just read up on your history. Greece, Rome, Mayan, Alexander, Otoman, Ghenkis Khan’s Mongolia – all ended; perhaps now is the time to start operating from a transparent, self-sustaining, honest and peaceful platform and realise we are human-beings; no matter where we live?

Just a thought.

In a release from Secretary of State Clinton, it was said that the sanctions were backed by China and Russia. Immediately after the release however, China released a statement that they also back the agreement initiated by Turkey and Brazil. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Ma Zhaoxu said his government believes the efforts by Brazil and Turkey will “aid the process of peacefully resolving the Iran nuclear issue through dialogue and negotiations.” (from here)

As Russia seems involved with the ‘alternative’ agreement as well, it seems like the US is once again working on its own and seeing the fact they run the IAEA more or less by themselves, it’s validity is (mildly put) debatable.

I’m growing a little tired of this supremecy of rightousness by the US. Indeed Iran (or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad more so) is claimed to have stated that they/he wishes to wipe Israel off the map. The level of controversy of the translation didn’t get the press, the initial translation did get, and as such this is taken for granted, but let me re-visit this little bushfire;

The translation presented by IRNA has been challenged by Arash Norouzi (involved with this and the article here on Huffington Post) , who says the statement “wiped off the map” was never made and that Ahmadinejad did not refer to the nation or land mass of Israel, but to the “regime occupying Jerusalem”. (See below for the entire story)

Then there are Muhadinejad’s own reactions to the whole thing;

Speaking at a D-8 summit meeting in July 2008, when asked to comment on whether he has called for the destruction of Israel he denied that his country would ever instigate military action, there being “no need for any measures by the Iranian people”. Instead he claimed that “the Zionist regime” in Israel would eventually collapse on its own. “I assure you… there won’t be any war in the future,” both the BBC and AP quoted him as saying.

(I stole this from Wikipedia btw.)

My point is this; I am not here to defend Iran, I know there are shitloads of issues at hand in the country that do not allign with how I would see fellow humans being treated. (such as; this, this, this, and this.) The thing is though, that supressing and sabotaging the economic development will not target the higher echelons of the country, only it’s people.

This kind of ideological diplomacy is nor for the benefit of the people, or the safety of the world. It is about maintaining the status quo, and I’ve kind of had it. Looking at India or Pakistan that are actually developing nuclear weapons and the lack of press coverage as well as ‘sanctions’ (related to the nuclear subject), I find it doubtful and am simply sick and tired of it.

The nuclear weapons threat is one that has been exploited for years and years now. The stupidity of it has been surpassed by it’s lack of transparency and one-sidedness of decision making. (which in itself is sort of transparent, yet not the kind of transparency I’d personally like to see.) But I think it would be a good idea to considder the arguments thrown at you by Western media.

Peace and pancakes.

The story behind it:

So what did Ahmadinejad actually say? To quote his exact words in Persian: “Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad.” That passage will mean nothing to most people, but one word might ring a bell: rezhim-e. It is the word “Regime”, pronounced just like the English word with an extra “eh” sound at the end. Ahmadinejad did not refer to Israel the country or Israel the land mass, but the Israeli regime. This is a vastly significant distinction, as one cannot wipe a regime off the map. Ahmadinejad does not even refer to Israel by name, he instead uses the specific phrase “rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods” (regime occupying Jerusalem).So this raises the question.. what exactly did he want “wiped from the map”? The answer is: nothing. That’s because the word “map” was never used. The Persian word for map, “nagsheh”, is not contained anywhere in his original Persian quote, or, for that matter, anywhere in his entire speech. Nor was the western phrase “wipe out” ever said. Yet we are led to believe that Iran’s President threatened to “wipe Israel off the map”, despite never having uttered the words “map”, “wipe out” or even “Israel”

The full quote translated directly to English: “The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time”.

Word by word translation: Imam (Khomeini) ghoft (said) een (this) rezhim-e (regime) ishghalgar-e (occupying) qods (Jerusalem) bayad (must) az safheh-ye ruzgar (from page of time) mahv shavad (vanish from)..^[12][13]

Arash Norouzi further adds that the The Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA) translation is the source of the confusion:

One may wonder: where did this false interpretation originate? Who is responsible for the translation that has sparked such worldwide controversy? The answer is surprising. The inflammatory ‘wiped off the map’ quote was first disseminated not by Iran’s enemies, but by Iran itself. The Islamic Republic News Agency, Iran’s official propaganda arm, used this phrasing in the English version of some of their news releases covering the World Without Zionism conference. International media including the BBC, Al Jazeera, Time magazine and countless others picked up the IRNA quote and made headlines out of it without verifying its accuracy, and rarely referring to the source. Iran’s Foreign Minister soon attempted to clarify the statement, but the quote had a life of its own. Though the IRNA wording was inaccurate and misleading, the media assumed it was true, and besides, it made great copy.^[12][13]

The story gets more and more interesting by the day. Yesterday NY Times published a series of letters to and from bishops and archbishops on two continents, what makes this correspondence ‘special’ is that it also features ‘his holiness’ Pope Benedictus – the devout Roman Catholic formerly known as Ratzinger. The letters addressed the ‘undesirable issue’ of Father Lawrence Murphy having been ‘engaged’ with over 200 deaf children in an inappropriate way. He (his holiness that is) did not respond, yet the fact his name shows up in this series is an interesting one.

A little reference to the Whore of Babylon from the Bible;

“And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:
^17:5 And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.
^17:6 And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.” (book of Revelation 17 & 18)

Now, I’m not against people finding solace in religion. If you’re happy; I’m happy. But the organised part of religion is what worries me. The extend of the current ‘misconduct’ brought to light is sick. Sexual abuse of children is something that sickens me to the absolute core and well, let’s just say I’m trying to be a peaceful man but in coming across news like this; my ‘faith is tried’.

The incredible hush-up and denial combined with the rigid and moral superiority outlook on the world of the Catholic Church is -dare I say; diabolical. Seriously, I’ve always thought ‘The Church’ to be backwards in a lot of things, but now my amazement has turned into horror. The sideways connection to a ‘myth’ described in ‘their’ own literature, that of the Whore of Babylon, is one that deserves a good, hard look;

- The woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand
+ Might just reference to the Pope

- MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH
+ Mystery = lies? Babylon the great = Vatican?  The Mother of Harlots and abominations of the Earth =  The Father of the Church (i.e. clergy) and thus representative of the Church as a whole.

- Woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration
+  Man who serves wine as ‘the blood of Christ’

A bit farfetched perhaps, yet, I do wonder..

I’m sorry for the possible offence people might take of this post, for I mean no harm to peaceful and harmless human beings -nor to others really, I believe living with the things you have done will take their toll. I take it we all look for meaning in life and we all have our own motivation in order to reach unification with that which we do not understand and possibly even fear. Yet, to systematically destroy the innocence of children, to take away from them the one thing that is so far lost in our world as is, mis-using the faith people have put in you as a spiritual councilor; is disturbing and wrong. Whatever excuse you may find for yourself, whatever God you may choose to believe in; I pray/believe/hope justice will serve you.

My thoughts go out to those who have lost faith in the recent weeks or have suffered from the tyranny of those who claim to be God’s voice on Earth. May you find God’s voice in that one place no one can touch you, within yourself, for it is you who has come to this life in order to experience, and there is no one that can tell you how to do so, but you.

Peace and love to all.

I would like to propose a new idea.

Let’s start a movement (petition wise or something) that raises votes to abolish the arms industry. Completely shut it down, I mean, you can’t wage war if there’s no weapons to do so with, and if you still want to, you can go at each other with sticks and knifes or something, no longer bothering innocent people with your bullocks.

The idea to push governments to shut down the investment in weapons and closing down the military seems reasonably impossible and –no doubt, people’ll start calling me a short-sighted idealist again. Then first of I’d like to point them to the philosophical argument of being an idealist (because I agree, I am one, yet not a short-sighted one), which would be idealism is; the philosophical theory that maintains that the ultimate nature of reality is based on mind or ideas.

-So, if a realist would come to me and argue of safety, I’d challenge him or her to quantify safety as an independent entity. Safety is a psychological entity that only exists in ideas or mind. I assure you that by abolishing the weapons industry we will be ‘safer’ as there are lesser external threads on the internal concept of safety. So that’s point one, point two would be that the world is more and more connected, and more and more people seem willing to overcome nationality, background, or ‘cultural heritage’ in favour of collaborating, discussing and creating a world that is ‘one’. Making it increasingly viable to –well, just give it a try. Governments are to be (especially in countries that claim to be democratic) subject to the people, and this would be an interesting chance to see whether or not we truly do live in a democracy.

Who’s with me?

Join the facebook group please.