Sunday, November 29, 2009

哈維爾︰難以預知的歷史(冉雲飛)Havel: Don't Do It for the Result

Prague Spring 1968 布拉格之春 1968

陈凯一语: Kai Chen's Words:

我最近在UCLA观看了一部关于捷克共产制度垮台的纪录片“Power of the Powerless" (弱者的力量)。 哈維爾先生的对自由追求的执著使我感动。 他并不去追求结果,只是做了自己认为对的事。 中国的人们着实缺乏这种精神与思维/行为的方式。 乔丹也曾说过“不要追求结果;让结果发生”也是同一个道理。 --- 陈凯

Recently I saw a documentary film(1968/1989 revolutions) - "Power of the Powerless". Havel's moral clarity and tenacity in pursuing truth/justice/freedom/dignity deeply moved me. Indeed he did not set out to pursue the result. He only did what he thought was right at the time. Such spirit and the way of thinking/behaving is lacking among the Chinese. Michael Jordan also once said "Don't chase things, let them happen". It has the same meaning. --- Kai Chen

哈維爾︰難以預知的歷史(冉雲飛)Havel: Don't Do It for the Result


作者 : 冉雲飛 2009-11-29 5:00 AM

圖為哈維爾 Václav Havel

冉雲飛按︰

今天是例外的晚起,起床時已達七點二十分,因為年底來了,今年該完成的寫作任務,不能拖延到明年去了,所以難免疲累。 按我早已的計劃,是介紹一篇楊小凱先生關于民主自由的文章。 但當我在推特看到Isaac Mao(毛向輝)兄推出哈維爾這篇文章,我即點進去讀,讀著讀著就被引吸了。 這是一篇前不久哈維爾發在報紙上的短文,文章並不長,亦不深奧,但我認為對中國讀者卻有相當現實的意義。

坦白地說,中國的人要麼做順民,要麼做暴民,就是不想去做公民。同理,許多人中國人要麼悲觀絕望,以爛為爛,破罐破摔,以至麻木到仿佛看透人世的一切,不願意去著絲毫的反抗與努力;要麼急功近利,成王敗寇,不顧一切手段,只要所謂的勝利與成功。 這兩種思維和行事狀態統治國人久矣。 為什麼會如此呢?當然我們可以說與不少中國人沒有真正的信仰有關——當然有許多看似有信仰的中國人,其實也只是機會主義者和急功近利之徒而已——但更要的是,我們 深受有毒的成功學(就像做題時只想答案的正確,而不享受解題過程的樂趣一樣)的教毀(誨),只看重結果,而不去享受人生的過程。 更進一步地說,做任何事,哪怕你自信有益的事,必然也要先知先覺地認為能做到必然的結果,才去做。 即對結果的愛好(機會主義和實用主義),使大多數的中國人缺乏享受人生過程的樂 趣,人世匆匆的目的,仿佛急著去赴死一樣,而不在于人生這個過程,這是多麼可笑的想法啊。

對結果的愛好和過份推重,不僅滋生實用主義和機會主義,更滋生一種對人生和歷史、理想和現實全知全能似的傲慢,正是這樣的傲慢給有局限的人類帶來了不測的後果和災難。我認為哈維爾們在不可預知的未來走向的情形下,反抗極權制度的心態和做法,是可以替國人做些示範的。 人應該意識到,來到這個世上,不是急匆匆地去赴死和尋找答案,也不是猴急馬急地去尋找那個所謂的成功,而是享受這幾十年的人世光陰。 最好的享受就是,做你當做的事,說你當說的話。


2009年11月29日9︰20分于成都

-----------------------------------------------------------

哈維爾︰難以預知的歷史

當年我還是一位異議人士時,我曾經接待過一些來自西方媒體的記者,他們在提問中流露出對我們這些在人口總數中佔極少數的異見人士居然公開致力于徹底改變社會 感到不可思議,對他們來說,我們永遠不可能翻天。 而且,恰恰相反,我們的努力似乎只會招來新的迫害。 沒有任何國家權力機構可以依賴,也無來自某個社會階層的明確支持,我們的願望是如此的徒勞。 當初記者們提得最多的問題是︰如果沒有其他力量的支持,無論是工人階層、知識界,或是反叛運動、合法政黨,或者其他 重要的社會力量,你們能夠走多遠呢? 對這些問題,我們也總是同樣的回答。

當時對我們的行為感到驚訝的人認為他們對歷史的運行規則了如指掌,能夠預測哪些事業可能成功,哪些則希望渺茫;哪些是理性的、現實的要求,哪些則純屬狂想。 在當年的談話中,我多次強調,在極權體制下,社會看上去鐵板一塊,忠于政權,實際狀況卻難以窺測。

事實上,這一由于恐惧感而形成的單一社會實際上比其外表要脆弱得多。 沒有任何人能夠預測一個隨意形成的小雪球有朝一日居然會引發雪崩。 這種想法雖然並不是我們 當初行為的唯一動力,但是我們確實是這麼認為的。 現在,我們可以得出明確的結論︰ 永遠不要自以為對歷史演變的規律了如指掌,自以為可以預測未來。

二十年前捷克斯洛伐克的學生抗議示威活動受到無情的鎮壓,這一事件就像一個小雪球引發了雪崩,極權體制動搖,旋即土崩瓦解。 當然,導致政權倒塌的原因很多︰體制自身內部的深層危機,周邊國家政局的演變以及有利的國際大氣候,等等。

無論如何,我們對極權政權如此輕易崩潰感到驚訝。 我們異議人士對此同西方的記者以及政治學專家一樣感到不可思議。 我們也一樣,無法預測事態的發展,對事變的後果不知所措。 我們過去所追求的只是要成為一個自由人,說真話,為國家的實際狀況作證,我們並沒有想到接管政權。

由于別無選擇,我們只好勉為其難,接手權力。 然而,就在那時,那些多年來認為我們的努力是徒勞無益的人們,又反過來譴責我們對接受政權沒有做好充分的準備。 直到今天,依然有人對我們的過去指指點點︰ 認為許多應該做的事情我們沒有做,也做了許多不應該做的事情。

這些事後諸葛亮譴責我們沒有預測到事件發生的趨勢,而我們當初曾經向這些疑慮重重的觀察家們指出我們並不能夠洞察歷史、預測未來。 但他們卻依然譴責我們在夢想成為現實的一天卻又難于接受現實。

在當初我們這些異議人士中間,有的是教授,畫家,作家,暖氣專家,但卻沒有政治人物。 同時,在一個極權國家我們又如何能夠平地而生找到政治人物呢? 我們當初必須要處理的事務之多實在難以想象。

回想起來,或許在沒有準備的狀態下承擔歷史的責任也並非壞事,尤其是當歷史車輪加速之時。 一般來說,我並不信任有充分準備的人。 在和平革命中,群情高漲,無私奉獻的氣氛中,民主政治體制的恢復和經濟體制的非國有化看似指日可待。

然而,事實卻並非如此。 事實證明,在幾個小時之內,甚至在幾天內醞釀,準備以及實施所有必要的改革是不可能的事。 我曾經多少次因為事情進展艱難、處處踫壁而心煩意亂。 對我來說,最為令人驚異的——這應該並不是我一個人的感受——我們可以在某種程度上影響歷史,但卻不能強暴歷史。

正如其他前甦聯東歐體制國家成員國一樣,捷克從一開始就極力推開西方一些機構的大門,尤其是北約和歐盟。 加入上述組織的過程十分漫長,期間曾經經歷重重困難。 我們今天終于穩穩地立足于歐洲,而我們曾經被迫與歐洲分離。 然而,我有時懷疑,西方某些老牌民主國家是否後悔接受了歐盟的擴大。 如果應該在今天作出決定的話,我不能肯定他們會同當初一樣接受我們。

如果果真如此的話,我不會感到意外。 這也就是我所要表達的觀點,耐心可以得到回報。 我們無論是在從事異議活動時還是在建立民主政權國家的漫長過程中都可體會到這一點,拔苗是不可助長的。

事情的發展有一定的階段,盡管這有時十分令人惱火。 說歐盟將永遠處于分裂的狀態之類的觀點是有害的,只會加強我們所在地區的民族主義情緒及其狂熱信奉者,所有局勢不穩地區的情況皆證明了這一趨勢。 而這一趨勢只會給西方乃至整個世界增添更多的磨難,況且,從目前看來,這種民族主義情緒正在日益蔓延

從這個意義上講,耐心是至關重要的。 急躁引發傲慢,而傲慢又反過來滋長急躁。 我所指的傲慢是自以為是世界上唯一全知全覺的人,是唯一掌握了歷史的人,所以有資格對歷史發號施令。 如果歷史的發展超出了自己的預測,就不惜干預。 必要的時候,甚至動用武力。 共產主義制度就是如此。

在這種傲慢與自信的推動之下,共產主義理論家和設計師們走向了古拉格、劳改。 因為從一開始他們就確信他們掌握了歷史發展的奧秘,他們知道怎樣建立一個更加公正的社會。 既然如此,還有什麼必要解釋呢? 對這些知道如何立即為人類謀幸福的人們來說,普通人如何思想是不屑一顧的。 對話只是浪費時間,煎雞蛋必須打破雞蛋。

東西之間鐵幕的倒塌以及被指責為萬惡之源的兩極世界的結束,無疑是一個重大的歷史事件。 這意味著一種奴役世界的暴力形式的結束,第三次世界大戰的陰影煙消雲散。 因此,在一段時間里,有人認為歷史已經終結,人類從此進入一個歷史之外的美好時代。

此類想法也是對歷史的奧秘缺乏謙卑或者缺乏想象力的表現。 事實上,歷史遠沒有終結。 盡管不少嚴重威脅已經離我們而去,但是隨著東西格局的打破,一些表面上似 乎不太嚴重的威脅開始浮上水面。 在全球化的今天,什麼樣的威脅可以被認為是微不足道的呢? 曾經長期被視為文明世界中心的歐洲,卻引發了兩次世界大戰。 我們肯定歐洲會永遠如此嗎?

今天,任何一個獨裁者都可以設法獲取一枚原子彈,地區性沖突難道不可能演變成全球性沖突? 恐怖分子難道不是比過去擁有更多的攻擊方式? 歐洲這一歷史上首個世俗文明,並不認為自己擁有永恆。 然而,歐洲難道不會正是因為缺乏遠見而引發各種嚴重威脅嗎? 那些充滿仇恨、狂熱偏執、為仇恨所支配的人難道不是仍在不斷地產生嗎? 而我們的全球化社會又為他們提供了空前的破壞空間。 難道我們不是每天都在作出對我們星球產生致命的,無可挽回的後果的各種行動嗎?

我個人最近幾十年來的經驗使我堅信,今天最重要的即是要謙卑地看待世界,尊重我們所不理解的,接受世界上有許多奧秘我們永遠也不會了解。 在承認我們並不是全 知全能、尤其是承認我們並不知道事物的結局的前提下承擔我們的責任。 其實我們是無知的。 但是,沒有人可以剝奪我們的希望。 同時,沒有驚訝的生活也是乏味的。

瓦克拉夫.哈維爾︰ 1936年出生于布拉格,哲學家、劇作家。《七七憲章》撰寫者之一,曾被監禁多年。1989年“絲絨革命”後,1993年到2003年期間任捷克總統。此文原載2009年10月31日《世界報》。

Saturday, November 28, 2009

Obama's Off-Shore Banking 奥巴马到中国朝拜-丑态恶行自暴

陈凯一语: Kai Chen's Words:

奥巴马的中国行更暴露了他内心道德虚无、崇尚权力、貌似救世主的丑态。 你会发现所有那些想在人间建立天堂的救世主们都不过只是一些建立人间地狱的暴君小丑罢了。 事实是只有那些将真实、正义、自由与尊严作为最高价值的社会是一个不断向前进步的、最接近人间天堂的社会。 --- 陈凯

Obama's China trip only further revealed what he truly is inside: a small man with obsessive moral nihilism/relativism, a self-aggrandizing/power-worshipping/self-appointed savior of the world's poor and unfortunate "masses"(much like Mao himself was). You will find that those who want to be the saviors of the world are actually only tyrants/despots or simple common thieves/criminals. The truth is: Only those societies whose highest values are "Truth, Justice, Liberty and Human Dignity" (as against getting "free lunch" from government) are progressing toward an imperfect but nonetheless one much closer to a true heaven-on-earth. --- Kai Chen


The Obama Watch

Obama's Off-Shore Banking 奥巴马到中国朝拜-丑态恶行自暴

By George Neumayr on 11.19.09 @ 6:09AM

The White House tells reporters that America's relationship with China "is at an all-time high." Why? Are the Chinese impressed that Obama hires Marxists like Van Jones and admirers of Chairman Mao like Anita Dunn? No, the reason for the cozy relations is that America's debt to China has reached an all-time high, and so Obama had no choice but to play the pander bear in Asia though he would prefer to emulate its old emperors.

He offered gaudy praise of China's economy, "an accomplishment unparalleled in human history," and soft-pedaled its record on human rights. The same moral relativism which excuses the human rights abuse of abortion at home crept into his remarks abroad: "It's very important for the United States not to assume that what is good for us is automatically good for somebody else. We have to have some modesty about our attitudes towards other countries."

America needs to make "progress" too, he reassured the Chinese, asserting that "old-fashioned ideas about the role of women in society" continue to bedevil the U.S. Suddenly, female feticide in China and reluctant housekeeping by American males were on the same moral plane.

Of much more interest to the Chinese than his musings on sexism is whether or not Obama can pay their loans back. While it may impress them in the abstract that his recently departed communications director counted Chairman Mao as one of her two favorite political philosophers, they would rather lend to reliable capitalists than aspiring Maoists.

According to Reuters, Chinese officials fear that Obama's socialist-style health care could cause their massive loans to go up in smoke.

"It turns out the Chinese are kind of curious about how President Barack Obama's healthcare reform plans would impact America's huge fiscal deficit. Government officials are using his Asian trip as an opportunity to ask the White House questions. Detailed questions," wrote James Pethokoukis. "Boilerplate assurances that America won't default on its debt or inflate the shortfall away are apparently not cutting it. Nor should they, when one owns nearly $2 trillion in assets denominated in the currency of a country about to double its national debt over the next decade."

During the trip Obama crowned himself the "first Pacific" president, having taken his first steps as a tot in Hawaii and spent quality time in Indonesia. But "First Pacific" sounds more appropriate as a name for his off-shore debt program.

George Bush Senior's trip to Asia is remembered for his episode of vomiting on its leaders at a state meal; Obama's will be remembered for bowing to them. His posturing took physical and moral form: bowing to the emperor of Japan, pandering to the bankers and tyrants of China.

The more undemocratic the ruler, the more deeply this self-described egalitarian president bows before them. Obama is committed to "equality" and forming a new world in its image, but almost literally trips over himself before Saudi princes and Asian emperors of ancient lineage.

The paradox is perhaps explained by his own taste for the trappings of power and the autocracy that lurks behind his egalitarianism. Grasping that his version of "equality" would require absolute power to achieve, Obama is easily awed before displays of it, even if only faded ones. He seems to envy the power of those unencumbered by democracy, a foreshadowing that the glorious new world he anticipates will more likely mirror the grimness of the old one.

His totalitarian hosts in China ludicrously serenaded him at a state dinner with the song, "We are the World." But Obama isn't interested in world democracy; he prefers to play its Caesar.

One of the photos used on the White House website from the trip captures his sense of self: Cleared of any one who might spoil the shot, he appears alone on the Great Wall, striding it solemnly in majestic solitude as the weight of the world rests on his shoulders.

Friday, November 27, 2009

黎鳴︰孔丘是中國法西斯的“祖師” Confucius - Founder of China's Fascism

陈凯一语: Kai Chen's Words:

法西斯主义、民族社会主义(纳粹主义)并不先来自西方。 中国本土的法西斯主义、民族社会主义(纳粹主义)已有两千年的历史。 我很高兴黎鳴先生与我有相同的观点。 那些只反中共而回避、容忍、颂扬中国传统专制的人们应该深深反思。 --- 陈凯

Fascism, or Nazism (National Socialism) is not an invention from the West as many think it is. Traditional Chinese culture has it in abundance over China's two thousand years of history. I am very glad that on this important point Mr. Li Ming and I share similar views. Those who only oppose Chinese communist regime but nonetheless tolerate/praise/worship Chinese traditional despotism should reflect deeply about the flaws in their own logic and mindset. --- Kai Chen

黎鳴︰孔丘是中國法西斯的“祖師” Confucius - Founder of China's Fascism


作者 : 黎鳴 2009-11-27 2:02 AM

什麼是中國的法西斯?首先談談什麼是“法西斯”?

“法西斯”的原意,是指古羅馬帝國時代的某種象征權力的“標志”,眾多的棍棒捆在一起,象征某個集團的團結,中間再插上一把殺人的斧頭,象征最集中的“權力”。這樣一來,“法西斯”的含義就有如下重要的幾點︰一,最集中專制的權力象征,代表某個具有魅力的領袖;二,最團結的權力集團,代表某個組織;三,最自戀最自大最排外的民族主義,甚至種族主義。

在西方近代,首先復活“法西斯”這個概念的是意大利的墨索里尼,他以此命名他的政黨,並以“法西斯”的權標作為他們政黨的黨徽。後來,這個概念更進一步成了德國希特勒的“國家社會主義工人黨”(納粹)的專用詞,“法西斯”更進一步成了“法西斯主義”(法西斯蒂)。什麼是“法西斯主義”?即︰一,更集中更專制的權力,更壟斷的組織,更獨裁的領袖;二,更強烈的民族主義,乃至更強烈的種族排外主義;三,更赤裸裸地訴諸暴力,甚至是訴諸殘忍的種族滅絕主義的暴力。

“中國的法西斯”是一種借用的概念︰權力第一,君主第一,國家社稷第一,這三點是共同的。達到這三點的措施︰禁止國民的自由言論、禁止國民的自由思想,以及按照某家族、某集團的利益為宗旨嚴格地限制國民的行為,這三條也同樣是共同的。孔丘在其“六經”之中特別宣傳的“思想”,以及在其弟子所著的《論語》之中所表達的“思想”,也全都非常明確地證明了上述的諸點。具體如孔丘的“禮樂”的思想、“三畏”、“四非”的思想等等,均極其明確地表達了上述的諸點。說白了,“中國法西斯”的思想,實質上即是兩千多年來中國歷代的極權專制統治者一致推崇的孔丘儒家的政治思想。

在談到中國“法西斯”的時候,更多的人們首先想到的是先秦韓非子的“法家”,因為韓非子的“法家”更多訴諸統治者的“殘暴”,而且更“絕情寡恩”;然而孔丘的儒家則似乎永遠都是那麼“溫情脈脈”,始終都在強調“仁者愛人”、“愛民如子”、“民貴君輕”、“輕徭薄賦”、“與民生息”等等等等,但不要忘記,“君君臣臣父父子子”、“畏天命,畏大人,畏聖人之言”以及“非禮勿視,非禮勿听,非禮勿言,非禮勿動”等等,則是永遠都不能變的。容易受騙的中國人就是如此地愚蠢,他們缺乏最起碼的政治辨別能力,他們根本就不能真正看穿︰無論“法家”、“儒家”,他們的實質,其實全都是“中國的法西斯”家,因為他們全都是在中國永遠主張不平等的“專制權力制度”的維護“家”,他們的“法西斯”的政治內涵和為了達到這種政治內涵的行為措施,也即“言禁”、“思禁”和“限行”的(法西斯)手段是完全一致的。而且別忘了,所謂韓非子的“法家”,原本就出自荀子的“儒家”,而荀子儒家不過是孔孟儒家的稍有不同的“變種”。

按照上面所述的“法西斯”的主要內涵,以及達到“法西斯”內涵的行為措施,我們很容易就能判定,孔丘實質上就是中國法西斯的始祖。而且比較西方的法西斯而言,中國的法西斯更長壽、更具有外表迷人的魅力,正是因此,孔儒的“禁止國民的自由言論、禁止國民的自由思想,以及按照某家族、某集團的利益為宗旨嚴格地限制國民的行為”的(中國法西斯的)歷史傳統,直到21世紀的今天還依然在中華民族的國家之中完整地保存,並依舊嚴實地施行。雖然中國的“法西斯”與西方的“法西斯”也具有非常明顯的差別。西方的“法西斯”往往以暴烈的民族外虐性行為快速地自殺,最多延續數十年,例如在第二次世界大戰之中的德、意法西斯的迅速地崩潰、毀滅;而中國的“法西斯”則以內酷外騙的民族自虐性行為慢性地自殺,往往可以延續二三百年,然後再又周期性地發作,這種“發作”則往往是從沒有受到過孔儒影響的周邊少數民族之中興起,進而統治中國,進而又繼續“尊孔”、“讀經”,又繼續拉起中國“法西斯”的“旗幟”,從而又繼續走向慢性的自殺,再又從新的某個少數民族產生新的“發作”,……如此循環往復,以至于無窮。可以說,兩千多年來,中國的“法西斯”讓“中國人”,特別是中國的“漢人”,嘗盡了“敗國”、“亡國”、“窮民”、“愚民”的無窮的痛苦。例如從漢代之後,後來凡是比較強大的朝廷,均是由少數民族皇家主政,例如隋唐(鮮卑族)、元(蒙古族)、明(回族)、清(滿族),中間有一個宋朝,雖然是漢族皇帝,卻是處于嚴重的中國版圖分裂和政治衰敗的狀態之中。造成中國歷史的如此鮮明的特點的最重要的原因之一,顯然即是儒家型“法西斯”政治的最終必然的腐敗無能、必然的愚昧之極。關于這一點,我後面還將會有專文加以論述。

在前面的文章之中,我已經指出,孔丘是在中國首開“言禁”的始祖,也是首開“思禁”的始祖,並且也是首先“以言論定罪”和“以思想定罪”殘忍殺人(少正卯)的始祖。可以說,這也正說明了他是中國“法西斯”的“始祖”。中國人,正是因為有了這樣一位“言禁”、“思禁”並“以言論定罪”和“以思想定罪”而殺人的“法西斯”始祖,而且中國人還始終都把他尊崇為“聖人”,永遠給他以“祭拜”,所以直到今天,中國人的“天下”,仍舊不能不是“言禁”、“思禁”的“天下”,仍舊不能不是“以言論定罪”、“以思想定罪”的“天下”。

我真是不知道,像孔丘這樣一個實質上的中國法西斯的“始祖”,這樣一個永遠主張“言禁”、“思禁”,永遠主張“以言論定罪”、“以思想定罪”的(法西斯行徑)的“始祖”,並且還是事實上的一個“殺人犯”,而我們中國人卻依然要那麼永遠地去崇拜他、去信仰他、去懷念他、去歌頌他,甚至還更要去繼承他,這究竟是為了什麼?我請那些當代孔儒的徒子徒孫們勇敢地站出來說說,來與我公開地辯論。我將請問他們︰難道他們還想要在21世紀之後時代的中國,繼續讓中國人去過那種在過去漫長的時期中國“法西斯”式統治之下的非人的生活麼?

對于孔丘這個中國法西斯的始祖,我惟一的希望,就是要讓今後的中國人永遠地把他忘掉。越快忘掉,並且忘得越是干淨,越好。孔丘,他簡直就是中華民族兩千多年來永遠歷史的“痛”。痛定思痛,我選擇對他的徹底地批判和揭露,然後是希望,徹底地讓未來的中國人把他忘掉,就當他是中國大地上的一條曾經長期害人的“蟲”,從今以後讓它徹底地死掉。親愛的同胞們,讓我們共同努力吧,為了能夠真正挽救我們中國人的孩子。(2009,11,18.)
-------------------------------------------------

I'm reminded of the premise of C. Fred Alford's Think No Evil: Korean (Chinese as well) Values in the Age of Globalization: "Koreans (Chinese as well) regard evil not as a moral category but as an intellectual one, the result of erroneous Western thinking." When the author asked his Korean (or Chinese) subjects whether something was right or wrong, good or evil, instead of an answer, he received a question: "What is the relationship?"

Supplement Article 附文

Confucianism and Evil 儒家与邪恶

The above title might seem unlikely for this blog, but I thought it would be clearer than "Confucian Confusion" of "The Confucian Dictatorship of Relativism" which were the other titles I considered after mulling over this week-old post from Prof. San Crane─Korean(Chinese)Confucian Abortion. The essence of the post, which itself was posted in response to something posted here, is as follows:

For Confucius human life is something more than biology (Kai Chen: Not because he/she has a soul, but because he/she is defined by his/her social recognition of others). We gain our humanity through social interactions, by fulfilling our duties in a careful and consistent manner. If we accept "Humanity" as a definition of human person-hood, then a fetus cannot yet be human until it has been drawn into social relationships. The actual moment of birth, defined by the Korean judges as "labor," is a sensible starting point for the social processes that make us human.

I'm reminded of the premise of C. Fred Alford's Think No Evil: Korean (Chinese as well) Values in the Age of Globalization: "Koreans (Chinese as well) regard evil not as a moral category but as an intellectual one, the result of erroneous Western thinking." When the author asked his Korean (or Chinese) subjects whether something was right or wrong, good or evil, instead of an answer, he received a question: "What is the relationship?"

This deficiency in the otherwise excellent moral system that is Confucianism is but an indication that it needs to be perfected by The Catholic (Christian) Faith.

Wednesday, November 25, 2009

American Spectator: China Wins 美国观察:中国人的不平等/奴才主子情结

陈凯一语: Kai Chen's Words:

中国人的病态“主子奴才情结”是与中国人的“非人政治文化心态”是息息相关的。 “人上人”与“人下人”是相依而存的。 不平等、没尊严是与“非人反人”相依而存的。 “无人虚无”是中国非人反人文化的实质。 我将一篇关于迟浩田讲话声称“杀一半儿美国人称霸世界”的文章贴在这儿共你思考。 --- 陈凯

The pathological Chinese complex of "being either a master or a slave" is deeply rooted in China's "anti-human" nihilistic political culture. "Being above someone" actually goes hand in hand with "being below someone". Superiority actually goes hand in hand with inferiority. Inequality with indignity from everyone is the necessary result. Inhumanity is the essence. I attached another article on Chinese general Chi Haotian (Tiananmen Butcher). To think that by eliminating half of America's population to ensure a Chinese Slave Empire makes me shudder. --- Kai Chen

At Large

American Spectator: China Wins 美国观察:中国人的不平等/奴才主子情结


By George H. Wittman on 11.25.09 @ 6:07AM

President Obama has done his best to convince the Chinese leadership that he considers China an equal to the United States. Unfortunately he has missed the essential point of Chinese thinking. The Chinese believe they are superior to the United States -- and every other country.

Part of this belief grows out of the sense of superiority that is an intrinsic part of Han culture. It perhaps does not fit in with the occidental idiom of international diplomacy that calls for a pretense at modesty, but it well fits the deep-seated, if carefully obscured, Chinese mindset.

An old Asian hand, the late Donald Wise, ex-Japanese POW and eventually an editor of the Far Eastern Economic Review, put it this way: "The Westerner rarely understands that no matter how obsequious any Asian, especially the Chinese, may seek to act, he always will consider you a lesser human being. The Japanese show it more often and appear to need to ultimately display their dominance, but the Chinese are far more clever at hiding their true feelings and exercise their strength only when it is most advantageous."

In more academic terms Dominic Lieven has noted in his book, The Russian Empire and Its Rivals, "… few Chinese have ever doubted the absolute superiority of their culture…" He further quotes a contemporary Chinese expert as speaking of "an innate, almost visceral, Han sense of superiority."

This has certainly been the case in Beijing's handling of the new Obama Administration and President Obama himself -- even though the American president has shown no sign of noticing any slight. In fact, as the Financial Times's Geoff Dyer and Edward Luce have written regarding Obama's recent visit to Beijing: " …Mr. Obama formally conceded that in today's world the U.S. can get only so far without China's help."

This of course plays to the firm Chinese belief in their ultimate cultural, and now financial, superiority. While perhaps a necessary device in diplomatic placation of Beijing, such kowtowing does not provide any leverage for the U.S. in terms of its own strategic interests. The problem that exists is that President Obama and his White House advisers think it does.

Like so many Westerners who in the past thought that they could "out-clever" the Chinese, the White House now thinks it has evolved a special relationship with Beijing in the creation of a unique financial partnership that it is happy to have the media characterize as the "G-2." Regarding China, sympathetic Washington pundits have taken to referring to "the new more pragmatic approach of Obama."

Unfortunately for Mr. Obama, what possibly is viewed by him as pragmatism is judged by the always superior Chinese leadership as an exploitable opportunity. The idea of the United States teaching China how to be a friendly global power is ludicrous. The Chinese were developing economic contacts in Africa as early as the 1960s, and have played the game of patron of the Third World since the decade before that.

It is possible to suggest that the Obama diplomatic methodology of excessive courtesy, characterized by some as fawning, is an excellent device that is far more effective than the "cowboy" character of the White House during the Bush years. It indeed would be possible to say this if there was any sign that the Chinese in turn have assumed any global responsibility to go along with having been anointed by President Obama an equal to the United States.

The truth is that Beijing, Washington's banker, delights in its role as a financial tutor to the United States that has so egregiously mismanaged its finances. The Chinese are quite secure in counseling their American government counterparts to roll back domestic programs while cutting back international military commitments. The Beijing administration sounds positively -- paleo-conservative. How clever is that?

It might be well for the current White House to remember that the Chou empire of c.1000 B.C. believed their land occupied the middle of the earth, and that they were surrounded by barbarians. The communists renamed their country Zhonghua renmin gonghequo (middle glorious republican country), translated into English as, the People's Republic of China. This Middle Kingdom still believes it is surrounded by barbarians. President Obama would do well to recognize the fact that this is not going to change.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Chi Haotian 迟浩田 -- Butcher of Tiananmen Square 天安门屠夫

How Chi Haotian sees China's slave empire being first in history to go global 迟浩田声称杀一半儿美国人后奴役世界

Speech by Chi Haotian Link: 迟浩田讲话链锁:

http://www.rense.com/general85/China'sPlanToConquer.htm

Lev Navrozov emigrated from the Soviet Union in 1972. His columns are today read in both English and Russian.

No ancient empire became physically global — the outside world was too distant and vague owing to the lack of later-day communications. Nor were slave empires rarities. Even in the first half of the 19th century, Russia was an empire with “serfdom” — slavery-dominated agriculture, and most inhabitants of cities were also slaves, except that they did not have private owners, for whom they would be obliged to work without pay.

Today the entire world is observable from China, and that world might become part of the Chinese slave empire. Thus, such an empire would become global for the first time in history.

The event was so much delayed in global history because in free or freer countries there developed science and engineering — and hence the most advanced weapons. On the other hand, in the first half of the 20th century, China was “backward,” and hence it could well be grateful that it would not be conquered by Japan, for example, since the United States, at war with Japan after the latter’s Pearl Harbor attack, dropped on Japan two nuclear bombs.

During the June 4, 1989, massacre of unarmed Tiananmen seekers of freedom, Chi was the Chief of Staff of the People’s Liberation Army and supervised the massacre. Yet President Clinton received him in Washington, with a 19-gun salute in his honor.

Until 2003, Chi Haotian was the Minister of Chinese National Defense. He is now 80 years of age, and in 2005 he was Vice Chairman of China Military Commission.

On 6/24/2009, the Yahoo! readers could read Chi’s speech of December 2005, under the heading “Speech by Comrade Chi Haotian, Vice-Chairman of China’s Military Commission.” The speech was delivered to the audience of top officers and generals of the People’s Republic of China.

Chi said that he was “very excited today” because in answering, “in the large-scale survey,” the “question ‘Will you shoot at women, children, and prisoners of war’ [in the U.S.A. and other enemy countries], more than 80 percent of the respondents answered in the affirmative.”

Why was Chi “very excited” about it?

If China’s global development will necessitate massive deaths in enemy countries, will our people endorse that scenario? Will they be for or against it? The fact is, our ‘development’ refers to the great revitalization of the Chinese nation, which of course, is not limited to the land we have now, but also includes the whole world.

Chi does not consider German Nazism evil. He considers the Germans insufficiently superior as a race and hence a failure. “Our Chinese people are wiser than the Germans because, fundamentally, our race is superior to theirs.”

Yet Chi advises to avoid the use of the German word Lebensraum “too openly” in order to “avoid the West’s association of us with Nazi Germany, which could in turn reinforce the view that China is a threat.” Chi prefers to use Britain and the U.S.A. as negative examples (and not to praise Nazi Germany):

. . . if we refer to the 19th century as the British Century and to the 20th century as the American Century, then the 21st Century will be the Chinese Century! (Wild applause fills the auditorium.)

How to deal with America?

America was first discovered by the ancestors of the yellow race, but Columbus gave credit to the White race. We the descendants of the Chinese nation are ENTITLED to the possession of that land! However: “Only by using special means to ‘clean up’ America will we be able to lead the Chinese people there.”

Fortunately for the owners of China, these “special means” are known as biological weapons, and Chi devotes a long paragraph to describe for how long biological weapons have been developed in the People’s Republic of China.

In conclusion, Chi presents his usual excuse. “It is indeed brutal to kill one hundred or two hundred million Americans. But this is the only path that will secure a Chinese century, a century in which the CCP [Chinese Communist Party] leads the world.”

Now, what is the purpose of making this official top-level speech known to the West? Traditionally, attackers make their war as unexpected as possible. Here the Minister of National Defense of China up to 2003 and then, in 2005 the Vice-Chairman of China’s Military Commission explains to Chinese generals and officers (and to the world, including the U.S.A.) how China will kill by biological weapons one-third or two-thirds (or three-thirds?) of the population of the U.S.A. in order for the Chinese to settle in “clean America,” that is, America minus one-third or two-thirds (or all?) of its population. Mass robbery via mass murder.

It seems to the rulers of China that China’s strategy should not be concealed but, on the contrary, should scare a potential victim. The United States has freedom, not slavery. The result of slavery in China is the conversion of population into slave soldiers ready to die if necessary when fighting an enemy. The result of freedom, according to Chinese like Chi, is the free search of the free population for its private happiness and first of all safety. Therefore, the free countries should be terrorized to make them surrender, which Chi has been doing for years.

At the same time, Chi declares the Chinese to be the superior race and promises to them the property of the Americans and other inferior races to be murdered by Chinese biological weapons and make the People’s Republic of China a truly global empire for the first time in the history of our planet.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Lev Navrozov can be reached by e-mail at navlev@cloud9.net. To learn more about and support his work at the Center for the Survival of Western Democracies, click here. If you intend to make a tax-exempt donation to the non-profit Center, please let us know via e-mail at navlev@cloud9.net, and we will send you all relevant information. Thank you.

Monday, November 23, 2009

楊逢時/為了台灣人民的福祉﹐民主燈塔不能滅 There is No Moral Equivalence

Kai:

Today I saw your article 毛蔣怎可相提並論 from “Open”. On this issue, I believe once again we have shared similar views…


Thanks for all your work! All the Best,

Fengshi
---------------------------------------------

Dear Fengshi:

Thanks for the message. Moral clarity is a prerequisite for a free society, and for a free being. I am glad that you are clear on this point. I have posted your article on my forums and blog. I hope you can write more such articles and help advance the cause of freedom in China and in the world.


Keep in touch. Thanks again.

Kai Chen www.kaichenblog.blogspot.com

--------------------------------------------------------

為了台灣人民的福祉﹐民主燈塔不能滅 There is No Moral Equivalence

--- 在台灣同鄉聯誼會全美年會兩岸問題討論會上的發言

楊逢時

8/23/2008

(根據現場錄音整理編輯)

今天我很高興能有這樣的机會和大家分享一下大家都關心的問題,就是兩岸問題。在座的都是專家,我這個音樂家在這里談兩岸問題,實在是有點班門弄斧。如果講了外行話請大家多多包涵,多多指教。

我是從大陸來的,我是一個音樂家。沒學過政治學﹐經濟學完全不懂。我關心中國大陸的社會問題,兩岸人民的福祉,關心中國的人權問題,是因為作為藝術家,我覺得追求自由是最最重要的。因為沒有自由就沒有藝術。所以我把自由看成是人生最重要的。正是因為對自由的追求,使我關心這些話題。

早上聽了兩位貴賓的演講。我也注意到﹐今天大會的主題是"民主燈塔的台灣﹐和平共榮的中華"。兩位貴賓的演講我听了很有啟發,但是我覺得他們主要是在講後面一句"和平共榮",我想趁這個机會講一講前面那一句話,就是"民主燈塔"。我在這里提几個問題,拋磚引玉,我們大家一起來討論。

第一個問題﹐我想問大家,在這個世界上,有沒有任何一個民主社會的國家是由共產黨領導的,有沒有這樣一個例子?(眾答:沒有)沒有,确實是沒有。因為共產黨,"共產"這個名字已經規定了他的特性,他是要消滅階級,消滅私有制,要國家集權,他不可能走向民主。就像東歐的共產黨,都是先崩潰了國家才走上民主的道路的﹐是不是?那么中國會不會是個例外呢?中國人會不會就是和別人不一樣呢﹖ 我覺得,不可能。共產黨的特性,已經註定了他不可能領導一個國家走上民主。認為共產黨會轉型﹐領道中國走上民主﹐是一個幻想。那就讓我們來看下一個問題。

第二個問題就是﹐國民黨和共產黨的本質區別在哪里?這兩個黨是不是"哥哥"和"弟弟"的關系?(眾笑。編者註﹕早上貴賓演講有把中華民國和中華人民共和國稱為兄弟關係) 因為常常聽到有的朋友說,國民黨也有威權的時候﹐也有專制的時候,台灣也經歷了白色恐怖,但現在他經濟開放了,又開放了黨禁,走上了民主。是不是共產黨現在也在經歷這個過程,他最後也會走上民主?大家在談論這個問題的時候我覺得,似乎忽視了一個最最重要的問題,最最根本的問題,就是這兩個黨有沒有根本的區別,如果有﹐他的根本區別在哪?我覺得這個根本區別是這兩個黨建黨的初衷是完全不一樣的,他的根基是完全不一樣的。國民黨建黨的時候沒有說要消滅階級吧﹖他沒有說要消滅私有制吧﹖他是承認私有制的,他是保護私有制的。但共產黨從馬克思的共產黨宣言開始,就是要消滅階級,消滅私有制。國民黨宣揚的是三民主義,共產黨宣揚的是共產主義。正是他們這個本質的區別使這兩個黨不可能走上同一條道路。國民黨因為尊重、承認私有制,保護私有制,所以在一定程度上,他會尊重人的一些基本的權利。隨著社會的進步,隨著人民對民主的追求,他會努力一步一步地走上民主的道路﹐這是順理成章的,和他的理念是吻合的,因為三民主義是中華民國建國的根基。所以當台灣走上民主的時候,國民黨不需要垮台,也不需要改名字。他可以繼續和其他政黨公平競爭。因為實現民主正是他所要走向的道路。專制不是他的最終目的。那么再看共產黨,他是要消滅私有制,消滅階級,所以就必然會導致國家集權,這是和民主水火不容的。除非他改名字。現在國民黨很多高官到中國大陸去,哪一位去問問胡錦濤,你能不能改名字呢﹖你現在不是也"市場"化了嗎,也開始"資本主義"了嗎,共產主義不是名存實亡了嗎﹖那么我們改個名字好不好﹖大家都高興。你看他會不會改。我覺得他不會改,絕對不會改,因為改名字就意味著他要放棄專制,放棄一黨專制,放棄消滅私有制這個目標。他改名字也就等于共產黨滅亡。所以共產黨和民主是水火不容,共產黨必須下台,國家才能走向民主。

那么接下來的第三個問題就是,民主國家与中共專制這樣一個政權的交流和來往,是否必然會導致中共民主化呢?我們先來看歷史。東歐共產國家在崩潰之前,有沒有像中國現在几十年的開放,有沒有像中國這樣和西方接触交流了几十年,受西方的影響呢?沒有。可他在一夜之間就崩潰了是不是﹖他崩潰前是基本封閉的。所以不是說他封閉了就不能走上民主,因為西方社會對他的壓力,民主對專制的抗爭,使他放棄了共產主義。我們現在和中國交流,我不是一概反對和共產黨交流,你可以去交流。但是我覺得交流的時候要有原則,不能放棄原則。和共產國家的交流就像投資一樣,可能有回報,但也有風險。是不是這樣﹖你在影響他的時候,他也在影響你。如果你不堅持原則,你能影響他什么呢?現有很多西方人﹐美國、台灣的商人去中國做生意,為了利益,他們放棄了原則,去符合中共的一些利益,有的幫著中共做打擊异己分子的工具,像Yahoo!這個事件大家都很熟﹐就是個例子。有些西方人看到了問題﹐在報上寫文章﹐提出了一個尖銳的問題﹐即交流的結果是他們更像我們﹐還是我們更像他們﹖我想﹐台灣在跟中共打交道的時候,在交流的時候,希望能夠清楚地意識到這一點﹐也應該有一個相對的策略﹐否則的話,台灣的民主,台灣的福祉都會受到影響。

根據前面講到的三點,我想講一講現在台灣提出的一系列的政策、口號。我自己本人說實在的,對這些政策口號,為了台灣人民我是有一定的擔懮的。現在有一些比較流行的說法,比如"政經分离","擱置分歧","善意和解","兩岸雙贏"。我真是要請教大家﹐政經能分离嗎?廖教授是專家,政治學專家,要請教你。我不太懂,但是我想說,從個人的生活的基本常識來講,政治和經濟好像沒辦法分吧﹖我真是覺得沒辦法分。怎么分?更不要說﹐大家應該都知道﹐在中國大陸是共產党領導一切,從上到下,從大到小,什么事他都管。就說最近的奧運吧,你們看哪一個國家辦個奧運能辦成全國的政治運動﹖每一個地方﹐到處都是為了奧運怎么樣、為了奧運怎么樣﹐為了奧運一切要讓路。這是什么?這是政治。連小孩長得漂不漂亮都和國家利益有關,是不是這樣?(眾笑) 誰在台前唱歌,誰在台后唱歌,都要由中央領導人點頭說可以還是不可以,他連這都管,你說你經濟怎么跟他分离?他怎么可能不管你呢?体育和政治在中國永遠不可能分開,經濟又怎么可能分開?我覺得政客提出"政經分离"是自欺欺人,是對老百姓不負責任。作為老百姓的我們心里應該有個數。因為我是藝術家,我可能不太懂這個策略是怎么回事,我只是從本能直覺來講,我覺得是不太可能分离的。

那么"擱置分歧"又是什么意思?我覺得,從道理上講﹐有問題就該解決,是不是?治根治本,才能從根本上解決問題。擱置分歧,是不是說把困難留到後面去,留給後人,我們現在不管它﹖我覺得這是對兩岸人民,對我們的後人是一种不負責任的策略、說法。舉個例子,大家都應該承認,現在中國的環境非常糟,環境污染非常的嚴重。可這不是這几年造成的﹐是不是﹖而是五十年代,半個世紀前,從大躍進,共產黨与天斗与地斗就開始的。那時候造成的後果由我們來承擔了。那么今天同理,我們把分歧擱置,是不是讓我們的後代去承擔我們今天擱置的困難,而且更嚴重呢?我覺得這是不負責任的說法,是短視,是為了眼前的利益。政客這樣講,是他的策略也好,商人這樣講,是為他的利益也好﹐作為老百姓,我們心里應該要清楚。

講到"善意和解",這個話,讓我心里有點不是很舒服。我可能比較動感情。我不知道你去代表誰和解﹖和誰和解?首先,應該知道﹐人民之間是沒有仇的。大陸人民、台灣人民,我們之間是從來沒有仇的。我們沒有敵意啊,是政治把我們強行分离的﹐是嗎?既然沒有仇,沒有敵意﹐我們談什么和解呢?你和誰和解呢?是不是一個黨和一個殺了無數中國無辜老百姓的這樣一個政黨去和解?多少人為了國民黨﹐多少人為了中華民國捐軀﹐又有多少大陸人為此毀掉一生最寶貴的時光﹐你有資格和權力為這些人去和解嗎﹖而且﹐這個殺了成千上萬的黨至今沒為他們的罪行有一絲一毫的懺悔﹐你去和他和解這合適嗎﹖悲哀嗎﹖兇手從未認錯﹐"和解"從何談起﹖再說,我覺得要和解應該有個基礎,這個基礎就是對等,要平等。你覺得我們平等嗎?對等嗎?國民黨去大陸談判,連個黨旗都拿不出來。馬總統不能叫馬總統,只能叫馬先生。中華民國國旗,不能挂。在這种很不平等的條件下,談和解能有什么意義,起到什么作用呢?我要講一點感情性的話,我最近看到不少從大陸勞改營生存下來的一些人的見證,觸目惊心。那些故事里有90%以上的人,不是因為他們曾經是國民黨黨員,就是曾經在民國政府裡做過事,或者是他的親人在台灣,他們就受到迫害,受盡折磨﹐真是家破人亡啊。我不知道在台灣白色恐怖嚴重的慘烈程度,但是你如果聽到這些見證,你真是不敢相信,共產黨怎么能對待自己的人民同胞這么慘酷。有的就是因為家里有人是國民黨,小孩就不能上學,剝奪了一切生存權。有個人講了這麼個故事,他在監獄里認識了一個人曾經是國民黨的特工,大陸淪陷的時候那個人留了下來,當然後來就被抓到了監獄里去。他說那個人是真正的英雄,因為很多人進去以後就受不了折磨,認罪啊,悔改啊,叫做什么就做什么。但是那個人堅持自己的理念,堅持認為三民主義是對的,堅持反共,最後他找了根筷子,插進了自己的心臟,自殺。我聽了心里非常難過。我想,今天國民黨的元老,國民黨的高層到大陸去,和這個殺了這么多人的共產黨握手的時候,你心里有沒有那么一點點對這些殉難者的負擔?你去拜祖墳,拜祖先的時候,有沒有想到為這麼多為中華民國捐軀的將士哀悼一下呢?提都不敢提。我覺得很難過。這是政治嗎?我覺得這不是政治,這是良心,這是原則。不管你是政治家也好,但人是應該有原則的。

再來談談"雙贏"問題。雙贏是什么意思?雙贏,共榮。大家應該承認這一點,台灣是民主社會,是民主制度。大陸是專制制度,是國家集權。那么你現在跟他談雙贏,那意思是不是說,民主和專制要雙贏呢?有可能嗎?我只覺得說,要不就是民主戰胜專制,要不就是專制戰胜民主。民主專制不可能雙贏。人民都是非常善良的,總是從好處想。在和中共交流的時候,也會無意中把中共政權,這個不是人民選出來的政權,當成了一個正常的民主社會的政府來對待。"和解"啊,"善意"啊,"妥協"啊,我覺得這些都是在一個民主制度框架下,大家遵循的一個原則,一種游戲規則。但是一個民主制度,一個專制制度,一個是民選的,一票一票由人民選出來的代表人民的政府,和一個不是人民選出來的,專制的政府,去談這些和解,能達到什么目的呢?

最後,我覺得﹐兩岸的問題,關鍵是意識形態的不同。這個分裂不是族群的分裂,也不是地區、地域的分裂,是意識形態的分裂,是三民主義与馬克思主義,三民主義与共產主義的分裂。說到底﹐是民主與專制的分裂。我們要解決兩岸問題,就應該解決這個意識形態的問題,這是最重要的問題。這個問題不解決,我們永遠達不到我們最終的幸福和自由。

最近我又看到一個比較新的口號,叫作"求大同,存小异",那么在這里要請教,這個"大同"是什么,"小异"是什么?那麼如果有"大异"怎么辦呢?(眾笑) 民主和專制這個不同算"小异"還是"大异"?我三月份有幸去了台灣,觀摩了台灣的選舉,我真是非常的欣慰,看到台灣的民主慢慢的開始成熟,我非常的欣慰。我在想,台灣有這么好的一個政治財富,為什么不用呢?現在說台灣是民主的燈塔,燈塔是什么意思?照明是不是﹖照明黑暗﹐照亮對岸。你為什么不用呢?你現在說"休兵"。"休兵"是什么意思?我也不太清楚,听上去好像就是算了,我們投降吧。"休兵"和"燈塔"我覺得是對立的。我實在是希望台灣這個民主的燈塔能起作用,不能說我這個燈塔怕刺到人家眼睛,人家覺得難過,害怕他有什么反應,我赶快先把燈滅了,一個燈塔滅了還有什么作用呢?我真誠地希望在座的都能意識到,台灣人民最終的福祉和安全,在於中國大陸走上民主,中國大陸的民主化才是台灣民主的保障﹐自由的保障。為了台灣人民的福祉﹐這個民主的燈塔不能滅。我希望一個國家的領導人﹐一個政治家﹐要有一個遠大的目標和理想﹐而不是一切為了眼前的利益。"Freedom is not free"﹐我們必須要堅持民主對專制的抗爭。也就是正義與邪惡這種道義上的抗爭。我還是這樣堅信,民主和專制不可能雙贏,不可能共榮,民主必須戰胜專制,讓我們一起努力來促使我們兩岸人民都能走上民主的道路。謝謝。(掌聲。同時有人在高喊﹕"我不同意你的觀點﹗你要發動戰爭呀﹖﹗你要發動戰爭呀﹖﹗")

Sunday, November 22, 2009

"Understanding China"-Leftist Article 美左向中共与世界专制投降

陈凯一语: Kai Chen's Words:

I now paste this article from liberal/leftist LA Times about how now American left views US-China relations. The mere fact they now coin the term "Civilization-State" to describe China shows the deterioration of American political culture as a freedom-loving principled existence. Political correctness is everywhere, dominating American thinking and behavior. The acceptance, accommodation and even appreciation of despotic cultures of other parts of the world in America precedes the forfeit of American responsibility as the leader of freedom in the world. By accepting the mode of development from China, even trying to emulate it, America is corrupting the core values upon which this great country was founded.

With regard to China, there is no such thing as "civilization-state" as the leftist author (Martin Jacques)of this article manufactured. There is only a communist "party-state" with a culture of state-slavery. There is no such thing as "clash of civilizations". There is only a clash of tyranny and liberty. There is no such thing as a collective "Chinese people". There are only those who love freedom and those who want to maintain despotism in China. If America will not or dare not to assume the leadership role in the world to combat the growing menace of Chinese despotism (and Islamic despotism for that matter), America will fail to live up to the meaning of its very existence, as enunciated in the Declaration of Independence, American Constitution and Emancipation Proclamation. The coming calamity with unprecedented tragic consequences will dwarf all the previous world tragedies/atrocities combined.

History, economy, cultural tradition, etc.., do not determine a person's/nation's destiny. Ideas, faith and ideologies (and the transformation of them) do. I, as someone from China and its cultural tradition, now having become a free man proves this point.

Make no mistake about it. Today, since 9/11/2001, freedom is retreating and tyranny is advancing. With liberal/leftist/socialist Obama administration in charge, tyranny/despotism around the world is emboldened to expand rapidly. Let's brace for a final conflict. --- Kai Chen

我现在将一个美国左翼(代表奥巴马观点的)作家的关于中美关系的文章贴在这里。 此作家发明的定义中国的新术词“(东方)文明政体”说明了美国左翼政治文化的新堕落。 在今天的美国,“政治正确病”已蔓延到美国政治文化的每一个角落。 接受、理解与纵容世界古老的各个专制文化作为“平等的不同”腐蚀了美国作为人类自由的先驱与领导的特殊地位/角色。 接受“中国式专制发展模式”甚至在美国仿效这种模式只说明美国的人们逐渐地淡忘了美国建国的原则与意义。

就中国而言,对我来说,根本就不存在什么像这个左翼作家所称的和编造的“(东方)文明政体”。 中国就是一个简单的、基于古典专制文化的、共产独裁的“党政”。 这世界上也根本就没有什么人造的“不同文明的冲突”。 这世界上只有简单而严酷的自由的个体与专制暴政的冲突。 这世界上根本就没有什么一锅酱的“中国人民”。 这世界上只有那些崇尚自由的人们(中国人在内)与维护专制暴政的人们。 这世界上根本就没有什么骗人的“中国/东方的文明”。 这世界上有的只是那个反人、反文明的、专制朝代恶性循环的、逐渐像艾滋病毒一样蔓延世界的中国式专制。 如果美国没有意愿与勇气承担起日趋艰巨的、领导世界自由的力量抵制/打击由中国与伊斯兰专制力量的攻击与挑战,美国将失去她立国的意义。 美国的“独立宣言”、“美国宪法”与“黑奴解放宣言”将淡漠成为废纸。 即将到来的由于美国的失职而导致的人类悲剧与暴行将是不可估量的与前所未有的。

历史、经济、文化背景等等(如马克思谬论所指)并不决定一个人/社会/国家的命运。 理念、信仰(及其转变)决定一个人/社会/国家的命运。 我本人,一个从专制文化中生长的人,通过自身的思考与努力并付出代价今天成为了一个自由人,证实了自由的可能与可贵。

有一点良知的人们都可以看到:自从“九一一”以后,世界自由的力量正在退却、世界专制的力量正加强攻势。 加上崇共、崇社、崇毛的对恶示软的奥巴马当局上台以后,邪恶的专制力量胆子一天天加大、力量一天天增强。 人们需要警觉并做好准备。 --- 陈凯


----------------------------------------------

"Understanding China"-Leftist Article 美左向中共与世界专制投降

Opinion/LA Times. 11/22/2009

Understanding China 理解中国

The West has gotten it wrong on China for decades -- even as it embraces a market economy, it has shunned Western-style freedoms. And its power is only growing.

By Martin Jacques

November 22, 2009

The dynamics of President Obama's trip to China were markedly different from those evident on visits made by President Clinton and President George W. Bush. This time the Chinese made clear that they were unwilling even to discuss issues such as human rights or free speech. Why? The relationship between the countries has changed: America feels weak and China strong in their bilateral ties. This is not a temporary shift that will reverse itself once the U.S. has escaped from its mountain of debt. Rather, it is the expression of a deep and progressive shift in the balance of power between the two nations, one that is giving the Chinese -- though studiously cautious in their approach -- a rising sense of self-confidence.

Nor should we be surprised by the Chinese response. They may have appeared more conciliatory on previous visits by American leaders, but that was largely decorative. The Chinese have a powerful sense of their identity and worth. They have never behaved toward the West in a supplicant manner, for reasons Westerners persistently fail to understand or grasp.

Ever since the Nixon-Mao rapprochement, and through the various iterations of the Sino-American relationship over the subsequent almost four decades, there has been an overriding belief in the West that eventually China would become like us: that, for example, a market economy would lead to democratization and that a free media was inevitable. This hubristic outlook is deeply flawed, but it still prevails, albeit with small cracks of self-doubt starting to appear.

The issue here is much deeper than Western-style democracy, a free media or human rights. China is simply not like the West and never will be. There has been an underlying assumption that the process of modernization would inevitably lead to Westernization; yet modernization is not just shaped by markets, competition and technology but by history and culture. And Chinese history and culture are very different from that of any Western nation-state.

If we want to understand China, this must be our starting point.

The West's failure to understand the Chinese has repeatedly undermined its ability to anticipate their behavior. Again and again, our predictions and beliefsabout China have proved wrong: that the Chinese Communist Party would fall after 1989, that the country would divide, that its economic growth could not be sustained, that its growth figures were greatly exaggerated, that China was not sincere about its offer of "one country two systems" at the time of the hand-over of Hong Kong from Britain -- and, of course, that it would steadily Westernize. We have a long track record of getting China wrong. (Kai Chen: May be the author is wrong again, as his predecessors were. When the Berlin Wall collapsed, only 3% of Berliners predicted it.)

The fundamental reason for our inability to accurately predict China's future is our failure to understand its past. Although China has described itself as a nation-state for the last century, it is in essence a civilization-state. The longest continually existing polity in the world, it dates to 221 BC and the victory of the Qin. Unlike Western nation-states, China's sense of identity comes from its long history as a civilization-state.

Of course, there are many civilizations -- Western civilization is one example -- but China is the only civilization-state. It is defined by its extraordinarily long history and also its huge geographic and demographic scale and diversity. The implications are profound: Unity is its first priority, plurality the condition of its existence (which is why China could offer Hong Kong "one country two systems," a formula alien to a nation-state).

The Chinese state enjoys a very different kind of relationship with society compared with the Western state. It enjoys much greater natural authority, legitimacy and respect, even though not a single vote is cast for the government. The reason is that the state is seen by the Chinese as the guardian, custodian and embodiment of their civilization. The duty of the state is to protect its unity. The legitimacy of the state therefore lies deep in Chinese history. This is utterly different from how the state is seen in Western societies. (Kai Chen: Indeed the Chinese see the state as God and Savior, but innately each Chinese is an individual with God-given yearning for freedom and happiness. I myself is a proof.)

If we are to understand China, we must move beyond the compass of Western reality and experience and the body of concepts that has grown up to explain that history. We find this extremely difficult. For 200 years the West, first in the shape of Europe and then the United States, has dominated the world and has not been required to understand others or The Other. If need be it could always bully the latter into submission.

The emergence of China as a global power marks the end of that era. (Kai Chen: It would be a tragedy if China dominates the world. I bet during Cold War, many in the West accepted a permanent presence of USSR in the world.) We now have to deal with The Other -- in the form of China -- on increasingly equal terms.

China, moreover, is possessed, like the West, with its own form of universalism (Kai Chen: "Universal Despotism" indeed). It long believed that it was "the land under heaven," the center of the world, superior to all other cultures. That sense of self, which has engendered a powerful self-confidence, has been persistently evident over the last 40 years, but with China's rise, it is becoming more apparent as the country's sense of achievement and restoration gains pace. Or to put it another way, when the presidents of China and the United States meet in Beijing in 2019, with the Chinese economy fast approaching the size of the American economy, we can be sure that the Chinese sense of hubris will be far stronger than in 2009 (Kai Chen: If China's despotism can last that long is a big question mark.).

But long before that, we need to try and understand what China is and how it behaves. If we don't, then relations between China and the United States will never move beyond the polite and the formal -- and that will be a bad omen for the future relationship between the two countries. (Kai Chen: Is there a polite and formal relation between liberty and tyranny?!)

Martin Jacques is the author of "When China Rules the World: the End of the Western World and the Birth of a New Global Order."

Saturday, November 21, 2009

赵静芝/奥宝宝,真乖 Obama in China - An Obedient Boy

陈凯一语: Kai Chen's Words:

赵静芝的文章很准确地描绘了奥巴马的中国行。 作为一个自由人,你对一个骨子里崇社崇共崇毛的人能有什么真实的期待呢?!有如列宁曾指: 美国正在向中国出卖绞死自己的绳索。 --- 陈凯

Mr. Zhao's article accurately depicts the essence of Obama's China trip. As a freedom-loving person, what can any one expect from someone who in his heart is a Marxist, who worships socialism, communism and Mao?! As Lenin once indicated: America is selling China the rope to hang America herself. --- Kai Chen

赵静芝:奥巴马是个不幸的乖宝宝 Obama in China - An Obedient Boy


作者:赵静芝

【大纪元11月20日讯】

中国人对于“乖宝宝”的评判标准有很多,大致是:你可以喜欢玩,但是要玩得有分寸。 你可以自以为是,但要考虑到别人的感受。 很善良,但要有点小笨。 很聪明,但要有点天真。 美国总统奥巴马刚刚结束的中国之行,因为其可爱程度超过了预期,中南海有点喜出望外,要不是碍于外交礼仪,胡锦涛可能真想“代表”全党全军全国各族人民深情抚摸奥巴马扁长脑瓜上那头略带卷曲的绒发,道一声:奥宝宝,真乖

乖到连人权两个字也没办法直接从嘴里吐出来,只能用“暗示法“让人去琢磨,真是让人叹为观止,堂堂美国总统先是在日本天皇面前行过93度鞠躬大礼,如今又到世界上最大的共产国家向世界丢了个大脸,真让人感到害臊。 奥巴马17日在北京和中共国家主席胡锦涛见面。 他嘴里的“人权”变成是“所有的男女拥有的某些根本的权利”。 《华尔街日报》等美国主流媒体集体哀叹,总统“出手不辣”、“闪烁其词”。 人权观察亚洲研究员贝克难掩心中的无奈,他认为,奥巴马将争取自由说成政治文化,实在是一大错误。

中美两个老冤家交手半个多世纪,就总统而言,在中共眼里还属奥巴马看得最顺眼。 从杜鲁门到里根,个个都是反共老手,直到老布什,总算找到了一点感觉。 但美国总统到访中国的时候,一般都会让北京有所难堪。老布什在宴会上喜欢请几个中国著名异议份子共襄盛举。 克林顿会坚持要求把演讲会做直播,让中国人民获得几十分钟的不经过中宣部审核的讯息自由的机会。 小布什来华得空喜欢去教堂转一圈,藉以表达对信仰自由的尊崇。 相比之下,只有奥巴马怪异,月初令人意外地“缺席”柏林墙倒塌20周年的纪念会,如今来到中国更是模范执行“三大纪律八项注意”,一切行动听指挥,中南海不觉感叹:还是第三世界沾点血缘关系的人当总统靠谱啊。

奥巴马也知道,光凭一张嘴做些空泛的承诺只能获得“诺贝尔和平奖”,得不了中南海“乖宝宝”的注册商标,因为中共比诺贝尔和平奖的评委们鬼精得多,绣花拳头忽悠不了这些江湖老手,奥巴马不拿出些干货出来,要想通过北京的“面试”恐怕有点难,搞不好逼着美国还债,那就没得命了。 因此,主动做好“家庭作业”是求得对方好感的关键。 其先是邀请中共军委副主席徐才厚访美,宣布放松对中国出口敏感技术的管制,把出口导弹和空间技术产品的审批权,从白宫下放到商务部。 其次,通过《2010年国防授权法案》,删除美国向台湾出售F-16战机的战略依据。 甚至不顾惯例,让到访的达赖喇嘛坐了回冷板凳。

奥巴马个人预热得差不多了,北京的常规动作也开始运作了,虽然老套,但对于政治对手一般都有用。当年台湾的连战被一声声催人泪下的“连爷爷回来了”感动得浑身酥松,到今天还没缓过神来。不过,中西状况不同,奥巴马对于中国人的人情世故并不一定领情,但中共宣传机构却依旧卖力鼓噪渲染。中新社发出文章,有鼻子有眼大赞奥巴马的中国情缘,妹夫是华裔,弟弟住深圳,能读中文版《红楼梦》,会用毛笔写中国字,还娶了个河南老婆。幸亏奥巴马老爸不在世,不然就凭中国和肯尼亚之间的关系,保不准能挖出不少老奥巴马爱读《毛主席语录》之类的政治八卦。其实,这位叫马克的奥巴马同父异母弟弟和奥巴马并不熟,两人此次在北京充其量也就见了五分钟面,我估摸着八成还是深圳市政府或者河南省政府出的差旅费呢。

秃子最怕别人说他头上没毛,即便你奥巴马兜里有再好的生发水,但是千万别当着秃子的面兜售。过去美国总统来中国都是一根筋、认死理,不给秃子面子,总是搞得秃子很生气。眼下奥巴马乖了,既不当面搞生发水的推销,也不痛陈秃子头上荒芜的害处:在上海和那些假冒学生对话的时候,明知有诈尚能全神贯注娓娓道来,虽然话题不疼不痒,但中共要的就是这个效果。在余下的节目里,无论是和胡锦涛的见面还是和温家宝座谈,话题不离金融、贸易、气候、新能源、太空利用,人权、西藏、台湾、宗教几乎全部蒸发,连蜻蜓点水都谈不上,只是到临走的时候在联合声明中干咳了两声。最让中南海振奋的是,奥巴马的三个随从还去拜祭了毛尸,主动接受“革命传统教育”,照此下去,奥巴马若二次来华,那位据说痴迷毛泽东的白宫通讯联络办公室主任邓恩索性唤随从直接去井冈山或者西柏坡算了,另外,把奥巴马的演讲安排在中央党校更有爆发力。

成龙说“中国人是需要管的”,李光耀对《时代》杂志说“中国人对民主体制不感兴趣”,如今奥巴马又开始在专权者面前卖乖,这些假洋鬼子和真洋鬼子都是为了几个臭钱,把中国人不当东西,那些至今还奢望中国的苦难需要别人来拯救的人,此刻真的应该心死了。

(http://www.dajiyuan.com)

Thursday, November 19, 2009

What Obama Accomplished in Asia?Nothing at All. 浅薄做秀奥巴马中国行-两手空空

What Obama Accomplished in Asia? 浅薄做秀奥巴马中国行-两手空空

Nothing much. 两手空空

陈凯一语: Kai Chen's Words:

Besides strengthening the Chinese communist regime's positions and appeasing/kowtowing an illegitimate government, Obama's China trip accomplished nothing - a waste of tax-payers money, much like everything he does nowadays. --- Kai Chen

除了为一个非法共产政权站台、对一个罪犯政府磕头之外,(天安门屠杀与人权毫无提及)奥巴马的中国行只是个两手空空的浪费我们赋税人钱财的徒劳。 他被选上台后完全是无所事事的做秀。 --- 陈凯


--------------------------------------------------

by Fred Barnes
11/19/2009 12:00:00 AM

Has a president ever been less successful on a trip overseas than President Obama has on his eight-day excursion to Asia? I've been covering presidents since Gerald Ford and I can't think of one.

Obama struck out on his entire agenda in China and he acquiesced as the Chinese subjected him to the humiliation of a choreographed town hall meeting with student members of the Young Communist League. And he suffered through a 30-minute news conference with Chinese President Hu Jintao in which no questions from the media were allowed. Presidents normally come away on visits to foreign countries with "deliverables"--that is, tangible signs of progress like a treaty signing. All Obama got was a list of things the United States and China would do in the future. There's a name for this: diplomatic boilerplate.

Obama's aides and flacks insisted he wasn't looking for immediate gains in the American relationship with China. Instead he was developing stronger relations for long term. This reminds me of what his defenders say about a football running back who doesn't gain many yards. He's a great blocker. Yeah, right!

And imagine the embarrassment of being lectured by the Chinese about being protectionist. No previous president has been subjected to that. China manipulates its currency and is protectionist itself. Yet Obama didn't have a good comeback to the charge because his administration has slapped tariffs on imports of Chinese tires and pipe. And Obama has declined to push for ratification of a free trade treaty, negotiated by the Bush administration, with South Korea.

What didn't Obama get in China? He wanted China to join in pressuring on Iran to stop its nuclear weapons program. He got nowhere on that. He hoped China would step up on curbing global warming. Again, he largely failed. He wished China would begin to strengthen its undervalued currency. On that, he got China's umpteenth promise to start that process--a hollow promise if there ever was one. Then there was human rights. No progress on that either.

That wasn't all. Even before Obama arrived in China, the U.S. was criticized at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum by Russia, Mexico, and China for creeping protectionism. The best Obama, who now calls himself "America's first Pacific president," could offer was willingness to negotiate a possible U.S. membership in a minor trade pact known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

Also at the forum, Obama had to settle for less than he sought on global warming. As a result, next month's international meeting at Copenhagen will only be a stepping stone to a comprehensive treaty later to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Plus, China zinged Obama for the weakened dollar.

One surprise of the trip was the press coverage. For once in Obama's case, it wasn't adoring. Obama took his lumps from the New York Times, Washington Post, and Los Angeles Times for his lack of accomplishment. "When it came to China, President Obama's famous powers of persuasion failed to persuade," wrote Barbara Demick of the LA Times. "Not only is the U.S. president coming away without definable concessions, but the Chinese appeared to be digging in their heels."
--------------------------------------------------------------

Obama’s Silence on China – by Matt Gurney

Posted by Matt Gurney on Nov 19th, 2009 and filed under FrontPage.

President Obama this week embarked on his first trip to China, but so far he has little to show for his visit. Wrapping up a three-day stay in the Asian powerhouse, the president secured impressive photo ops, spouted lofty rhetoric, and made vague statements about future plans. Yet he has done absolutely nothing to defend American interests or to stand up for the Chinese people who continue to suffer under communist tyranny.

For an unapologetically liberal leader, President Obama had surprisingly little to say to China on the contentious issue of human rights. While China has enthusiastically embraced capitalism, it has ignored the Western world’s demands that it improve the treatment of its own people.

The facts are bleak. An estimated half-million Chinese are currently being held without trial or legal recourse; religious freedoms are suppressed; and the Chinese press is vigorously censored. The minority Tibetan and Uighar peoples are oppressed. Prisoners face torture and swift execution. While China may excel at wowing the world with dazzling events such as the 2008 Beijing Olympics, it remains a deeply repressive country.

And yet, President Obama has tip-toed around these issues, doing his best to avoid antagonizing his hosts. He has not met with Chinese liberals, with spiritual and faith leaders, and certainly not with the Dalai Lama. The spiritual leader of the Tibetan people, the Dalai Lama has been a thorn in China’s side ever since China occupied Tibet, and yet has always been feted in the West as a champion of freedom and human rights. President Obama hasn’t exactly repudiated this position; he’s simply refused to meet with the Dalai Lama until after the summit, hoping to play both sides of the coin. Apparently, the president believes that it is possible for America to find a balanced position between the oppressor and the oppressed.

The president’s only “real” contact with average Chinese citizens occurred during a so-called town hall meeting with students in Shanghai. The meeting was actually a carefully managed media event, controlled by the Chinese. Obama played along and made a few bland remarks about the need to embrace openness and limit censorship, knowing that his words would reach few in China, and therefore not offend his hosts. The president’s statement on the value of open information and a free press were seen by almost no one — the Chinese did not widely broadcast the event. So much for freedom of the press.

It is unfortunate that President Obama has shown the same disinterest in the plight of Chinese dissidents that he did in the fates of Iranian reformers. For all his talk of optimism and hope, Obama clearly values building relationships with dictators more than supporting the people they oppress. This would be difficult to swallow even if it had conveyed any advantages, but ignoring the Iranian protesters has done nothing to improve relations between America and Iran, and will do no more to improve America’s standing with China.

It would be imprudent, of course, for Obama overtly to provoke China. China’s economic and military strength are growing rapidly, at a time when America’s economy and military are already stretched to the breaking point. America clearly wants to see China take a greater leadership role in the world, thus relieving some of the burdens America shoulders. In some small ways, China has cooperated, dispatching naval ships to assist in anti-piracy operations off the coast of Somalia, for example. On other issues, however, notably the Iranian nuclear program, China has shown no inclination to help America.

In his haste to welcome China onto the world stage, President Obama should take care not to slight the other Asian giant. India, almost as populous as China and a democracy, to boot, is like China a vibrant, growing power. India is actually more likely to be amenable to American interests in the region, particular in regards to combating militant Islam. The Indian government has responded negatively to President Obama’s invitation for China to increase its role in providing security in the region, a region that is far from America, but home to the Indians.

While the United States might not be able to tower above China as it could in the past, when the president of the United States speaks, the world listens. But the president’s strongest words were saved for lecturing China for its monetary policy, calling on Beijing to stop keeping the value of the Chinese dollar, the renminbi, artificially low. That would hurt Chinese imports to the benefit of America.

While most financial experts agree that the Chinese renminbi’s value is indeed too low relative to other major currencies, it must be remembered that it is China that has financed America’s deficit spending. President Obama has no business lecturing the Chinese on financial matters when his ambitious social engineering plans, especially his proposed healthcare reforms, will sink America even deeper into deficit, a deficit that Obama is counting on China to finance.

China’s rise has prompted many to suggest that America must learn to treat the Asian power as an equal. But President Obama has gone beyond such concessions. An equal partnership is one thing. But until Obama finds the backbone to publicly say what must be said about the injustice of China’s political system, he treats his own country as the junior partner.

Tuesday, November 17, 2009

Jabbar Answers My Email 关于北京奥运--前Lakers'中锋贾巴回复我的电邮

K. A. Jabbar Answers My Email 前Lakers'中锋贾巴回复我的电邮

Jabbar's Blog Link: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/kareem/

To Kai Chen... May 08, 2008

Thanks for your informative e-mail that shares info on the nature of the Chinese Communist Party. Detailed information on that subject was not available to me before I heard from you. I will not be totally ignorant about that subject in the future. I hope that athletes such as yourself will be able to attain the democratic freedoms we take for granted. --- K. A. Jabbar

陈凯: 5/8/2008

感谢你的电邮。 它使我更进一步了解了中国共产党的性质。 在我接到你的电邮前我对此了解的不够。 好在读了你的电邮后我不会对此话题那么无知了。 我希望像你一样的(中国)运动员们会终将获得我们(在美国的人们)所拥有的、但常常不加珍视的自由。 --- 贾巴


Link to my forum article in 2008:

http://www.kaichenforum.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=4093&sid=5c8e7e0ac9c729cc6d742012b1c84c62

Kai Chen's Email to Jabbar 陈凯对贾巴的电邮

Dear Kareem: 5/5/08

"Slavery is not a matter of simple oppression. It is an insidious codependency between the slaves and the slave-owners. This is also true in today's Chinese State Slavery". I as a modern abolitionist will stand up to address the issue of the nature of the Chinese government and society, as a conscientious athlete, as a free man. --- Kai Chen

I am a former basketball player for the Chinese National Team in 1978. I published my book last year. "One in a Billion - Journey toward Freedom, the Story of a Pro-Basketball Player in China". You can go on Amazon to get it.

After I read your article in today's LA Times, I wrote a piece in my forum (http://www.kaichenforum.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=4093&sid=5c8e7e0ac9c729cc6d742012b1c84c62). I will paste that article in my blog as well: www.kaichenblog.blogspot.com/. My personal website is www.kaichenforum.com/.

I am very disturbed by your comparison between 1968 Mexico City Olympics and 2008 Beijing Olympics. To me there is no comparison, but only contrast. To compare America with China is a gross moral mistake and such a moral confusion must be addressed.

China is not a nation. China is a Party-state. The Chinese communist government is not only illegitimate but criminal in nature. If you know China's constitution, you will see that the communist party's absolute control over the Chinese population is guaranteed in it. The Chinese press, court, army, police are all under the command of the communist party, not under the government. Throughout the reign of terror under the communist regime, 70 million innocent lives have been lost over murder, torture, starvation, labor camps. Today those atrocities are still being perpetrated upon the Chinese people. Christians, Monks, Falungong practitioners, minorities..., are still being persecuted. If you truly want to compare the Olympics from the past with the Beijing Olympics, only two come to my mind: 1936 Berlin Nazi Olympics and 1980 Moscow Communist Olympics. To compare the Beijing Olympics with any other only shows your moral confusion and ignorance.

I am not advocating boycotting the Beijing Olympics for the sake of the athletes. But I do advocate boycotting the Opening Ceremony in Beijing August 8, 2008. And I strongly urge President Bush not to attend the Opening Ceremony.

I read your book "The Giant Steps" and I admire your intelligence and integrity. But your moral blind spot on this issue and your position on the Chinese communist regime will cause negative consequences for the freedom-loving people in the world. Tolerance of differences is a virtue. Tolerance of evil is beyond a vice, for such tolerance will bear grave consequences in the years to come, and will put one squarely into the camps of evil regimes. Please rethink your position on the Beijing Olympics. Or if you want to educate yourself on this issue, you can establish regular communication with me. My phone: 323-734-2544, or 323-734-3071. My email: elecshadow@aol.com

Yao Ming is facing a great moral dilemma. He, as I was, is not a free person. He signed a soul-selling contract with the Chinese government before he entered NBA. He will never reveal the extent of involvement he is with the Chinese government, in political propaganda, in slaving for a criminal state, in offering himself for a little material gain to oppress others... We are only tools and lackeys for a regime who holds our love of our profession -- basketball as hostage against our free will. I say this for all the Chinese athletes who are still under the thumbs of tyranny. I as one, one of a very few, today stand up to tell the world the truth about Chinese athletics and sports. I hope you will take a stand against evil as well.

With respect. Kai Chen, a fellow athlete.
-----------------------------------------------------------
陈凯:Kai Chen

你给Jabbar的信让我感动,Jabbar的诚挚认错的回信也让我感动,美国人这种总是忏悔自己的精神是我们中国人所缺少的。

Your email to Jabbar moves me deeply and so does his response to you, admitting his ignorance on this subject. We Chinese indeed lack such a self-reflection that is so needed in our culture.

由于美国人没有经历过共产极权的苦难,他们很难理解中共的邪恶残酷的本质。他们去中国看到的都是表面的辉煌,他们看不到中共极权政府暗地里天天都在不断地杀戮和迫害。当世界和美国都在享受廉价的中国产品时,却没有多少人知道中共政府在六十年统治中杀掉了七、八千万中国人这个事实,也很少有人想到中共极权是如何压榨中国人的血汗去生产那些廉价产品的。当我遇到这些天真善良的美国人赞成中共的“经济成就”时,我的英语水平就很难说服他们。我非常感谢你在为中国的自由人权做这个艰苦的工作,我们中国人需要你这样的有良知的运动员和民主斗士。 如果可能,请你把这封短信翻成英文发给Jabbar,我非常感谢他对中国的关心。

Indeed Americans have never gone through a communist dictatorship like the Chinese. (Kai Chen: Thank God for that.) It is natural that they are ignorant on the subject of cruelty and atrocities committed by the evil communist regime in China. Now many in the West only see the fast development and glitz put in front by the Chinese government. They have not seen what is underneath -- endless killing, torture and persecution. When the Americans and the world enjoy the low-price Chinese manufactured goods, no one stops to think 80 million lives lost and murdered during the 60 years of reign of terror under the communist regime. No one stops to think where these cheap goods come from and how they are produced. I am frustrated every time I meet some good but ignorant people in America praising the "miracle of Chinese development", for my English is not good enough to inform them about the evil of the Chinese regime. I thank you so much for giving voice for the voiceless, for fighting for freedom and human rights in China. We do indeed need people like you so very much. If possible, please translate this short message into English and send it to Mr. Jabbar and thank him for paying attention to this important issue.

Diane Liu (三妹)

Saturday, November 14, 2009

《寻找林昭的灵魂》 Searching for Lin Zhao/Your Own Soul

陈凯一语: Kai Chen's Words:

崇毛并不说明毛的伟大,只说明崇毛者们的渺小与卑鄙。 只有中国的人们开始崇尚像林昭一样的人(和像耶稣基督一样的被多数人迫害杀害的但道德灵魂高尚的人-他往往是独立的个体),而不是崇尚像毛或秦皇一样的利用多数道德混乱的、胆小如鼠的宦奴娼们压抑杀害独立个体屠夫专制者的时候,中国才会开始走向自由、幸福与希望。 --- 陈凯

Worshipping Mao does not mean Mao is great. It only shows the smallness and ugliness of the devil-worshippers. Only when the Chinese people start to worship an individual like Lin Zhao, (or Jesus Christ for that sake) who is morally upright, independent and courageous (though she/he was tortured and murdered by the multitude of the morally confused and cowardice under despotism), only when the Chinese people start to abandon their cultural habit of devil-worship toward some mass murderers like Mao (or the Qin Emperor), hope, freedom and happiness can start to emerge in China. --- Kai Chen


------------------------------------------------------

http://www.drunkpiano-liuyu.net/?p=429

《寻找林昭的灵魂》 Searching for Lin Zhao/Your Own Soul

Youtube Links: 视频链锁:


http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=%E5%AF%BB%E6%89%BE%E6%9E%97%E6%98%AD%E7%9A%84%E7%81%B5%E9%AD%82&search_type=&aq=f

十月 18th, 2009 | Category: 电影书评音乐, 讲政治-中国

刘瑜

今天终于看了听闻已久的《寻找林昭的灵魂》。 虽然情节基本不出所料,还是被深深震动。 关键是林绝不是因“误会”而被打成右派,那些假右派多年来哭哭啼啼说自己是被冤枉的其实我特爱党妈妈求求你党妈妈别抛弃我,而林昭自始至终说的却是,我就是不爱你你杀了我我也不爱你你也不撒泡尿照照你自己瞧你那德性我凭什么爱你。

我在想,这样的人,一个人与八亿人扳手劲,她的ego该有多么强大,简直是神灵附体。

而且她的文采还那么好,在那个汉语被糟蹋殆尽的年代里,还在使用那么优美的、人类的语言。

然后再想想那些红卫兵,那些当年凌辱迫害她的人,那些至今还逍遥法外的罪人,那些脚仍然浸泡在历史深深的血腥里手里却举着香槟互相恭喜发财的芸芸众生,那些肉虫子,真是恶心无比。

先是同情她,然后觉得who am I?凭什么同情她?如此健康强大的灵魂,谁有资格同情她。

很想搞到胡杰的email,给他写email致敬。虽然这个纪录片在技术上比较粗糙,但是那些技术上精湛的人都在忙些什么呢。

看完电影回来读朋友的博客,惊闻以前的一个好友也成了崇毛者,有点吃惊,但又不真的吃惊。一切不从个体经历而从宏大概念的角度看世界的人都是潜在的崇毛者,而该同学向来是个宏大概念爱好者。崇毛与否本质上不是一个政治观的问题,而是一个认识世界的方法问题。有鼻子有眼会哭会笑会思考会喜悦会疼痛的只能是个人,放弃这种个体立场,将一个一个的个人所承受的痛苦看作_____(此处填入任何宏大概念)的代价,或者认为一个专制者给一个一个具体的人带来的痛苦可以因为他对_____(此处填入任何宏大概念)的承诺而被原谅甚至被崇敬,换言之将个人视为工具、视为手段,是一切极权主义思维的起源。

今天的中国仍然是一个肉虫子的国度,林昭恐怕还是不能安息。没关系,他们有1万年,她有1万零1年。

Thursday, November 12, 2009

A Chinese Dissident’s Triumph 方政的胜利-他又站起来了

陈凯一语: Kai Chen's Words:

方政自从天安门惨案被中共坦克碾去双腿后从未停止对生命的热爱,也从未停止重新站起来的希望。 美国的人们使他这一宿愿实现了。 我作为一个运动员与热爱自由的人为他感到骄傲与高兴。 --- 陈凯

Fang Zheng, since he lost his legs to the communist tank on Tiananmen Square in 1989, has never lost his passion for life and his hope to regain his ability to stand up again. America has now fulfilled his dream. I as a fellow athlete and a freedom-loving person truly feel proud and happy for him. --- Kai Chen


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

A Chinese Dissident’s Triumph 方政的胜利-他又站起来了

– by Faith J. H. McDonnell

Posted by Faith J. H. McDonnell on Nov 12th, 2009 and filed under FrontPage.

Last month I watched history in the making.

No, I was not in Norway for the Nobel Peace Prize announcement. I was in a bare-bones meeting room at the U.S. Capitol Visitor Center in Washington, DC, watching a Tiananmen Square hero dance.

In 1989, Fang Zheng was a handsome young student at the Beijing College of Physical Science, a star sprinter and an Olympic hopeful. Fang was a member of the Communist Party, but like thousands of other students who were gathered in Tiananmen Square, he had hopes for a new era of freedom and democracy in China. That dream, as well as the dream of Olympic glory, was killed at Tiananmen Square.

On the morning of June 4, 1989 the Chinese Communists rolled in their monstrous response to the students’ peaceful protest. As the demonstrators frantically fled, Fang risked his own life to push a girl out of the path of an oncoming tank. The tank hit him, and caught in the treads, he went under. Miraculously, he survived, but both legs were crushed and had to be amputated.

When he recovered from a double amputation, Fang began training in discus and javelin throwing. In 1992 he won two gold medals and broke two regional records in the All-China Disabled Athletic Games. But the Chinese Government feared his success would call attention to a massacre that they denied had even taken place. They banned Fang from further competitions and attempted to pressure him to “admit” that his injuries were from a road accident, not the legacy of violence at Tiananmen Square. When Fang refused, he was denied his college degree, severely limiting his ability to find work. Even then, he determined to be a living witness to the oppression of the Communist system.

Although Fang was barred from attending the 2008 Beijing Olympics, an intrepid German journalist found a way to contact him for an interview. But before the interview could take place, the Chinese government notified Fang that he and his family would be allowed to leave China for the first time if he gave up the interview opportunity. Fang, Zhu Jin, and their little girl, Grace, traveled to the United States in February 2009. Ironically, the government’s attempts to isolate Fang from the outside world provided the greatest opportunity he has ever had to speak out, and to once again stand.

I first met Fang and his family in June 2009. They were the guests of honor at a reception to honor Chinese dissidents and commemorate Tiananmen at the home of Michael Horowitz and his wife, Dr. Devra Marcus. Horowitz, a fiery advocate for human rights and religious freedom, has been working with Chinese activists and house church leaders for years.

Although Chinese doctors and even specialists at M.I.T. had told Fang that he was not a candidate for prostheses, Dr. Marcus was determined that he should walk again. And always one to push the envelope of the possible, Horowitz said, “he will not just walk – he will dance!” They had consulted specialists who work with the troops at Walter Reed Hospital. And sure enough, by that evening in June, they had already found the doctors, therapists, and prosthetics creators who could make it happen. That night in his living room, Horowitz promised that we all would be invited to watch Fang Zheng and Zhu Jin dance.

Four months later, some 150 friends, fellow Chinese dissidents, and members of Congress and the media, we watched Fang Zheng twirl Zhu Jin around the impromptu dance floor as if he had been doing it all his life.

Dancing again: Fang Zheng with his new legs. 方政重新起舞

And more than that, we watched history in the making. We witnessed the healing of yet one more wound inflicted by Communist oppression. We rejoiced with the Chinese dissidents, the hope of democracy in China. We blessed the handiwork of American doctors and therapists who had so generously donated their time and their very considerable talent to helping Fang to walk again. We marveled at the state-of-the-art computerized hundred-thousand dollar legs, also generously donated to Fang. And we heard something that seems to be in short supply around Washington, DC these days – praise for America.

Over and over, Fang Zheng and the other Chinese former dissidents thanked America and the American people. Fang said that he was full of gratitude for “the greatness and goodness of America” and the American people who had helped him and his family through his journey to that moment. And Dr. Yang Jianli, one of Fang’s fellow dissidents and a former prisoner of the Chinese laogai, said that Fang Zheng’s newfound freedom was “a celebration of American values – values we treasure even more than you do.”

It was a nice change from the normal leftist lambasts and apologies for America’s greedy ways to hear expressions of gratitude for an America I actually recognize – full of good and generous people, bolstered by freedom and democracy. Chinese dissidents presented awards to all of those whose generosity had enabled Fang to stand: David McGill and Shane Namack from the Ossur Corporation, manufacturer of orthotics and prosthetic limbs for the United States’ armed forces; Michael Corcoran and Mark McVicker, directors of Medical Center Orthotics and Prosthetics; and Dr. Terrence Sheehan, Chief Medical Officer at Adventist Rehabilitation Hospital.

Another leader of the Tiananmen Square student movement, Dr. Feng Congde, compared Fang Zheng’s triumph over adversity to the words of Chairman Mao sixty years ago when he commanded, “Chinese people, stand up.” In spite of what the disciples of Mao did to him at Tiananmen Square, “Fang Zheng is standing up now,” said Feng.

But by Fang Zheng’s triumph, he seems to also be responding to another quote from Chairman Mao, recently espoused by White House Communications Director Anita Dunn, who called Mao one of her “favorite political philosophers.”

“You fight your war, Mao, repressing freedom and democracy, crushing the hopes and spirits of the Chinese people, and imposing State control on every aspect of people’s lives, and I’ll fight mine, overcoming the effects of your evil on my own body, with the help of those who love and honor freedom,” Fang seems to say, as the sounds of freedom reverberate under the U.S. Capitol.

Fang Zheng and his fellow dissidents, courageous fighters for freedom and human rights, are not only winning the war, they are changing history.

Faith J. H. McDonnell directs The Institute on Religion and Democracy’s Religious Liberty Program and Church Alliance for a New Sudan, and is the author of Girl Soldier: A Story of Hope for Northern Uganda’s Children (Chosen Books, 2007).

Wednesday, November 11, 2009

黎鳴︰只有蠢人的國度才推崇“國學” China Studay? What China Study?

陈凯一语: Kai Chen's Words:

我曾说过中国的人们习惯于在自己撒满尿的尿盆里游泳,并为此不以为耻反以为荣。 黎鸣先生的论点与我不谋而合。 没有勇气在自然的蓝色海洋中畅游的人是不会意识到尿盆里的龌齣的。 --- 陈凯

I have stated that people in China are so used to swimming inside a chamber-pot full of their own urine that they don't realize how dirty and harmful such practice is. It takes a great deal of courage to swim in the blue ocean and once you did you will truly find out how fake and how nauseating the Chinese cultural environment truly is. Mr. Li Ming indeed has the same view on this subject as mine. --- Kai Chen


-----------------------------------------------------

黎鳴︰只有蠢人的國度才推崇“國學” China Studay? What China Study?

"中國人的“國學”,說白了,是中國人關起門來自己稱王稱霸的“自欺欺人”之“學”,更是專門用來欺負自己的老百姓、自己的青少年的“偽學”。說得更嚴肅一點,這是中國人的精神自淫,甚至精神自殺。"

——兼談清華大學“清華國學院”開張的“噩耗”

作者 : 黎鳴
2009-11-11 12:00 AM

近代中國“國學”的興起,本身即是一幫儒家文人為了抵制“西化”而專門設置的“障礙”,而近代中國也正就是在不斷地克服這些儒家文人們的重重障礙的歷史過程之中艱難地前行。很顯然,在東方“西化”的道路上,我們中國遠不如日本、新加坡、韓國順利,包括也遠不如長期成為了他國“殖民地”的本國的香港和台灣順利。嚴峻的歷史事實告訴我們,如果沒有近代百年的“西化”,中國人能有今天“中華人民共和國”的國家嗎,能有“國民黨”、“共產黨”的存在嗎?能有近三十年“經濟的起飛”嗎?我請問那些盲目的“民族主義者”們,你們今天所運用到的所有的知識、思想、觀念,甚至日常使用的最普通的器具,例如種種的家用電器,它們的發現、發明和創造者們,有多少不是來自西方呢?你們知道中國的“國學”是什麼嗎?是明明白白的儒家文人們的“蠢學”,其中的絕大部分更是極端愚蠢的“儒學”——“太監學”,也即由儒家文人的“太監腦”們空徒折騰出來的“太監文化學”。這全都是一堆根本就不可能產生任何新的發現、新的發明和新的創造的歷史文獻之中的“文化垃圾”。

在當今世界上的任何一個大凡有一點點真正人類理性的自尊心的國家,誰會給自己國家的“學說”取名為“國學”呢?世界各國有嗎?沒有,惟有“以儒立國”的愚蠢的中國有。

這說明了什麼?這說明了中國人根本就沒有能力、沒有志向,沒有勇氣,甚至沒有任何一點兒自信和自覺的願望,以便讓自己真能為全世界、全人類做出一點點真正有價值的“學說”、“思想”、“觀念”等等方面成就的貢獻來。中國人的“國學”,說白了,是中國人關起門來自己稱王稱霸的“自欺欺人”之“學”,更是專門用來欺負自己的老百姓、自己的青少年的“偽學”。說得更嚴肅一點,這是中國人的精神自淫,甚至精神自殺。中國的“國學”有什麼價值呢?有本事到國際上去爭取一個“學說”的“冠軍”去,去拿一個國際上承認的“諾貝爾獎”去,到全世界去大力宣揚、廣泛宣揚去,也讓別人學一學由中國人發明的“普世”的“學說”、“思想”、“觀念”,這才是真正能夠表現出中國人的偉大“人類”的“人性”來啊;而僅僅標榜自己(空無一物)的“國學”,說穿了,是害怕走出國門的不敢見人之“學”,事實上也就是根本走不出國門,或即使羞羞答答地走出了國門也讓人深深地瞧不起的無用之“學”。這樣的“國學”能夠是中國人的“光榮”嗎?不,這里根本就沒有任何中國人的“光榮”,而是只有純粹中國人的“恥辱”。中國人應該知“恥”!

老子早就說過,“企者不立,跨者不行,自見者不明,自是者不彰,自伐者無功,自矜者不長,其在道也,曰余食贅行,物或惡之,故有道者不處。”說白了,所謂中國的“國學”,其實就是中國人的“自見”、“自是”、“自伐”、“自矜”(包括“自夸”、“自吹”、“自封”、“自閉”、“自殺”、“自辱”)之“學”,就是“有道者不處”的“余食贅行”之“學”,翻譯一下,就是“吃飽了撐的”和“無所事事”之“學”。其實還遠不止于此,因為它們更極其有毒。

說得絕對難听一點,中國儒家文人實在根本就沒有任何有價值的“學”,所以才拿出一個(自我夸耀的)“國學”來為自己壯膽,既是“說謊”,也是“吹牛”,更是“拍馬”。向誰“說謊”?向中國的老百姓“說謊”;向誰“吹牛”?向全世界、全人類“吹牛”;向誰“拍馬”?向中國當政的統治者“拍馬”。如此“說謊”、“吹牛”、“拍馬”的“國學”,純粹就是中華民族的災難、累贅、恥辱,無窮無盡的“毒藥”。

清華大學終于鼎不住了,所以于11月1日也開張了“清華國學院”,這樣的“清華大學”算是“完蛋了”。我就搞不懂,清華大學要跟著人民大學干什麼呢?“國學院”能為你們向國家要“錢”麼?你們還缺錢麼?你們不缺錢,你們缺靈魂,缺中國人真正“人”的靈魂!

“清華國學院”是清華大學的噩耗,而決不是清華大學的喜訊。我深深為之嘆息。

(2009,11,8.)

Tuesday, November 10, 2009

Sarah Palin/Commemorating a Victory for Freedom 佩林评柏林墙倒台

陈凯一语: Kai Chen's Words:

Sarah Palin stands out as the only American Politician today in articulating the purpose and principles of the United States as the founders intended. I wish there were more people like Ronald Reagan and Sarah Palin in the world today. We need them desperately. --- Kai Chen

佩林女士是今天在美国政界唯一突出的为美国建国精神高声唱赞的政治领袖。 我为像她与里根那样的自由的斗士而自豪并希望更多的自由的斗士们站出来为美国的建国原则与精神呼喊。 --- 陈凯


---------------------------------------------------------

Sarah Palin/Commemorating a Victory for Freedom 佩林评柏林墙倒台

Sun at 11:35pm

Twenty years ago, the ultimate symbol of the division between freedom and tyranny was torn down. The Berlin Wall was constructed for one purpose: to prevent the escape of East Germans to the freedom of the West. The Wall’s cold, gray façade was a stark reminder of the economic and political way of life across the Soviet Union’s sphere of influence in Eastern Europe.

Ronald Reagan never stopped regarding the Berlin Wall as an affront to human freedom. When so many other American leaders and opinion makers had come to accept its presence as inevitable and permanent, Reagan still hammered away at the Wall’s very premise in human tyranny, until finally the Wall itself was hammered down. Its downfall wasn’t the work of Reagan alone. Our president’s actions were joined with the brave acts of many individuals who stood firm and united in facing the Soviet Union. The Berlin Wall came down because millions of people behind the Iron Curtain refused to accept the fate of enslavement and their supporters in the West refused to accept that the “captive nations” would remain captive forever.

Though that long, tragic episode in human history had come to a close finally with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, it wasn’t the “end of history” or the end of conflict as some had hoped. New conflicts confront us today throughout the world which call for courage and resolve and dedication to freedom. The new democracies and market economies that have emerged in Central and Eastern Europe still require our friendship and alliances as they continue to seek security, prosperity, and self-determination. But as we reflect on present and future challenges, let’s take time to celebrate the anniversary of this awesome victory for freedom. The downfall of that cold, gray concrete Wall should be a lesson to us in hope. Nothing is inevitable. Tyranny is no match for the hope and resolve of those who work and fight for freedom.

- Sarah Palin

Sunday, November 8, 2009

透視中共國: 陳凱 魏京生談美國/毛像/中共滲透 Kai Chen/Wei Jingsheng Video Programs/Links 视频链锁

透視中共國: 陳凱 魏京生談美國/毛像/中共滲透 Kai Chen/Wei Jingsheng Video Programs/Links 视频链锁

千之風電視平台 http://latwtv.com/

-----------------------------------------------------

透視中共國 陳凱 魏京生談中國的毛澤東怪像01
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bdwf4QqNxuY

透視中共國 陳凱 魏京生談美國的毛澤東怪像 02
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cVXvoEmypo

透視中共國 陳凱 魏京生 談中共對美國的滲透01
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trPlGptk-WE

透視中共國 陳凱 魏京生談中共對美國的滲透02
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Dve21juFBY

透視中共國 陳凱 魏京生談美國政界的變化
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_d_qwu2x5HU

---------------------------------------------------------------

Global Museum on Communism 全球共产邪恶博物院:

http://www.globalmuseumoncommunism.org/









Saturday, November 7, 2009

Mr. Gorbachev, Tear Down This Wall! 里根图书馆-柏林墙倒台二十周年纪念

Former first lady Nancy Reagan is helped by George Shultz, secretary of state under former President Ronald Reagan, as they arrive beside a replica of the Berlin Wall on Friday at the Reagan Library in Simi Valley.

Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate!
Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall! 戈巴乔夫先生,打开这座门!戈巴乔夫先生,砸碎这道墙!
--- Ronald W. Reagan, 1987 at Brandenburg Gate, Berlin 里根总统, 1987,柏林

He (Reagan) believed that to seek to accommodate any political system, which left millions of people in oppression, was morally wrong. 他(里根)相信去容忍世界上任何压抑迫害千百万人的政治制度都是道德上腐败的。 --- Mrs. Thatcher said of Reagan 萨切尔夫人 (评论里根总统)

Speakers reflect on fall of Berlin Wall at Reagan Library event 里根图书馆-柏林墙倒台二十周年纪念

By Anna Bakalis

Posted November 7, 2009 at midnight

Years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, former U.S. Secretary of State George Shultz and former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev were sitting in a backyard near Stanford, where Shultz was teaching.

The two men discussed what they thought was the turning point in ending the Cold War.

Gorbachev said it was two leaders — he and President Ronald Reagan — sitting in a room together, talking.

Shultz said it was Reagan’s decision to show military might in 1983 by sending missiles to West Germany.

“The strength we put on display was never used,” Shultz said. “Strength works hand in hand with diplomacy.”


Twenty years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, Shultz and other key figures in the end of the Cold War spoke Friday to a sold-out audience of about 900 at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and Museum.

Hosted by former first lady Nancy Reagan, diplomats, world leaders and Reagan’s top advisers spoke throughout the day as part of “Ronald Reagan and the Fall of the Wall: Reflections From Yesterday, Lessons for Today.”

Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall! Shultz said when he joined the Marines during World War II, he was given a rifle and told to use it only if he was willing to pull the trigger — not for empty threats. He said Reagan lived by that idea, too.

“When he said something, they knew he meant it,” said Shultz, who served as Reagan’s secretary of state for almost eight years.

In 1987, Reagan stood in front of the wall’s Brandenburg Gate and said, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!”

For almost 30 years, the wall separated East Germany from West Germany; 137 people died trying to get to the other side of the wall.

The conference featured panels with Richard Allen, former national security adviser; Ed Meese, former U.S. attorney general; John Lehman, secretary of the Navy; and Martin Anderson, chief domestic policy adviser.

In the morning panel, a member of the audience asked the former Reagan advisers to respond to the notion that Reagan’s participation in the end of the Cold War was minimal — the end was coming regardless of his participation.

Allen said on the first day Reagan was president, he walked into the Oval Office, and among a few items on his desk, nearby was a plaque that read:

“There’s no limit to what man can accomplish, as long as he’s willing to let someone else have the credit.”

Allen said Reagan “knew he stood on the shoulders of other people.” Reagan wouldn’t accept the credit, instead offering it to others like British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and Colin Powell, Reagan’s national security adviser from 1987-89.

Thatcher sent a letter to the library that was read aloud just before Shultz’s speech. In it, Thatcher said of Reagan: “He believed that to seek to accommodate any political system, which left millions of people in oppression, was morally wrong.”

A panel discussion on what the fall of the wall achieved, and some of the remaining obstacles democracy faces in Eastern Europe included Vaclav Klaus, president of the Czech Republic; Leszek Balcerowicz, the former first deputy prime minister of Poland; and Mart Laar, former prime minister of Estonia.

Shultz said that when he first arrived at the Reagan Library on Friday morning, he was offered a tour through the 40th president’s library. Instead, he and his wife went to Reagan’s final resting place. He then saluted the nation’s 40th president.

“There was only one ‘Mr. President’ — the one that I served with,” Shultz said.
---------------------------------------------------------------

The Wende Museum invites you to Celebrate the 20th Anniversary of the Fall of the Berlin Wall

WHAT: Celebration of the Fall of the Berlin hosted by the Wende Museum

An 80' x 10' Wall of Art will span Wilshire and collapse at midnight
An original 40' section of the original Berlin Wall
Music entertainment by legendary German Chanteuse Ute Lemper

WHEN: Sunday, November 8, 2009 11:00 p.m. to 12:30 a.m.(midnight)

WHERE: On Wilshire Blvd., between Fairfax and Spaulding.

INFO: www.wallproject.org

Wednesday, November 4, 2009

10 things to celebrate 十个原因使我热爱美国--为什么我讨厌反美的人

陈凯一语: Kai Chen's Words:

美国是人类自由与希望的最后堡垒。 由美国“独立宣言”与美国宪法所代表的美国精神是我选择作为一个美国公民的原因。 我希望每一个美国公民与新移民都扪心自问:美国代表什么? 我为什么来到美国? --- 陈凯

America is the last bastion for human freedom and hope in the world. American spirit enunciated by the Declaration of Independence and the American Constitution is what attracts me to have chosen to become an American citizen. I hope every American citizen, native born or foreign born, ask himself/herself: What is America? Why do I come to America?! --- Kai Chen


-------------------------------------------------

10 things to celebrate 十个原因使我热爱美国

Why I'm an anti-anti-American 为什么我讨厌反美的人


Dinesh D'Souza

Sunday, June 29, 2003

America is under attack as never before -- not only from terrorists but also from people who provide a justification for terrorism. Islamic fundamentalists declare America the Great Satan. Europeans rail against American capitalism and American culture. South American activists denounce the United States for "neocolonialism" and oppression.

Anti-Americanism from abroad would not be such a problem if Americans were united in standing up for their own country. But in this country itself, there are those who blame America for most of the evils in the world. On the political left, many fault the United States for a history of slavery, and for continuing inequality and racism. Even on the right, traditionally the home of patriotism, we hear influential figures say that America has become so decadent that we are "slouching towards Gomorrah."

If these critics are right, then America should be destroyed. And who can dispute some of their particulars? This country did have a history of slavery and racism continues to exist. There is much in our culture that is vulgar and decadent. But the critics are wrong about America, because they are missing the big picture. In their indignation over the sins of America, they ignore what is unique and good about American civilization.

As an immigrant who has chosen to become an American citizen, I feel especially qualified to say what is special about America. Having grown up in a different society -- in my case, Bombay, India -- I am not only able to identify aspects of America that are invisible to the natives, but I am acutely conscious of the daily blessings that I enjoy in America. Here, then, is my list of the 10 great things about America.

-- America provides an amazingly good life for the ordinary guy. Rich people live well everywhere. But what distinguishes America is that it provides an impressively high standard of living for the "common man." We now live in a country where construction workers regularly pay $4 for a nonfat latte, where maids drive nice cars and where plumbers take their families on vacation to Europe.

Indeed, newcomers to the United States are struck by the amenities enjoyed by "poor" people. This fact was dramatized in the 1980s when CBS television broadcast a documentary, "People Like Us," intended to show the miseries of the poor during an ongoing recession. The Soviet Union also broadcast the documentary, with a view to embarrassing the Reagan administration. But by the testimony of former Soviet leaders, it had the opposite effect. Ordinary people across the Soviet Union saw that the poorest Americans have TV sets, microwave ovens and cars. They arrived at the same perception that I witnessed in an acquaintance of mine from Bombay who has been unsuccessfully trying to move to the United States. I asked him, "Why are you so eager to come to America?" He replied, "I really want to live in a country where the poor people are fat."

-- America offers more opportunity and social mobility than any other country, including the countries of Europe. America is the only country that has created a population of "self-made tycoons." Only in America could Pierre Omidyar, whose parents are Iranian and who grew up in Paris, have started a company like eBay. Only in America could Vinod Khosla, the son of an Indian army officer, become a leading venture capitalist, the shaper of the technology industry, and a billionaire to boot. Admittedly tycoons are not typical, but no country has created a better ladder than America for people to ascend from modest circumstances to success.

-- Work and trade are respectable in America. Historically most cultures have despised the merchant and the laborer, regarding the former as vile and corrupt and the latter as degraded and vulgar. Some cultures, such as that of ancient Greece and medieval Islam, even held that it is better to acquire things through plunder than through trade or contract labor. But the American founders altered this moral hierarchy. They established a society in which the life of the businessman, and of the people who worked for him, would be a noble calling. In the American view, there is nothing vile or degraded about serving your customers either as a CEO or as a waiter. The ordinary life of production and supporting a family is more highly valued in the United States than in any other country. America is the only country in the world where we call the waiter "sir," as if he were a knight.

-- America has achieved greater social equality than any other society. True, there are large inequalities of income and wealth in America. In purely economic terms, Europe is more egalitarian. But Americans are socially more equal than any other people, and this is unaffected by economic disparities. Alexis de Tocqueville noticed this egalitarianism a century and a half ago and it is, if anything, more prevalent today. For all his riches, Bill Gates could not approach the typical American and say, "Here's a $100 bill. I'll give it to you if you kiss my feet." Most likely, the person would tell Gates to go to hell! The American view is that the rich guy may have more money, but he isn't in any fundamental sense better than anyone else.

-- People live longer, fuller lives in America. Although protesters rail against the American version of technological capitalism at trade meetings around the world, in reality the American system has given citizens many more years of life, and the means to live more intensely and actively. In 1900, the life expectancy in America was around 50 years; today, it is more than 75 years. Advances in medicine and agriculture are mainly responsible for the change. This extension of the life span means more years to enjoy life, more free time to devote to a good cause, and more occasions to do things with the grandchildren. In many countries, people who are old seem to have nothing to do: they just wait to die. In America the old are incredibly vigorous, and people in their seventies pursue the pleasures of life, including remarriage and sexual gratification, with a zeal that I find unnerving.

-- In America the destiny of the young is not given to them, but created by them. Not long ago, I asked myself, "What would my life have been like if I had never come to the United States?" If I had remained in India, I would probably have lived my whole life within a five-mile radius of where I was born. I would undoubtedly have married a woman of my identical religious and socioeconomic background. I would almost certainly have become a medical doctor, or an engineer, or a computer programmer. I would have socialized entirely within my ethic community. I would have a whole set of opinions that could be predicted in advance; indeed, they would not be very different from what my father believed, or his father before him. In sum, my destiny would to a large degree have been given to me.

In America, I have seen my life take a radically different course. In college I became interested in literature and politics, and I resolved to make a career as a writer. I married a woman whose ancestry is English, French, Scotch-Irish, German and American Indian. In my twenties I found myself working as a policy analyst in the White House, even though I was not an American citizen. No other country, I am sure, would have permitted a foreigner to work in its inner citadel of government.

In most countries in the world, your fate and your identity are handed to you; in America, you determine them for yourself. America is a country where you get to write the script of your own life. Your life is like a blank sheet of paper, and you are the artist. This notion of being the architect of your own destiny is the incredibly powerful idea that is behind the worldwide appeal of America. Young people especially find irresistible the prospect of authoring the narrative of their own lives.

-- America has gone further than any other society in establishing equality of rights. There is nothing distinctively American about slavery or bigotry. Slavery has existed in virtually every culture, and xenophobia, prejudice and discrimination are worldwide phenomena. Western civilization is the only civilization to mount a principled campaign against slavery; no country expended more treasure and blood to get rid of slavery than the United States. While racism remains a problem, this country has made strenuous efforts to eradicate discrimination, even to the extent of enacting policies that give legal preference in university admissions, jobs, and government contracts to members of minority groups. Such policies remain controversial, but the point is that it is extremely unlikely that a racist society would have permitted such policies in the first place. And surely African Americans like Jesse Jackson are vastly better off living in America than they would be if they were to live in, say, Ethiopia or Somalia.

-- America has found a solution to the problem of religious and ethnic conflict that continues to divide and terrorize much of the world. Visitors to places like New York are amazed to see the way in which Serbs and Croatians, Sikhs and Hindus, Irish Catholics and Irish Protestants, Jews and Palestinians,

all seem to work and live together in harmony. How is this possible when these same groups are spearing each other and burning each other's homes in so many places in the world?

The American answer is twofold. First, separate the spheres of religion and government so that no religion is given official preference but all are free to practice their faith as they wish. Second, do not extend rights to racial or ethnic groups but only to individuals; in this way, all are equal in the eyes of the law, opportunity is open to anyone who can take advantage of it, and everybody who embraces the American way of life can "become American."

Of course there are exceptions to these core principles, even in America. Racial preferences are one such exception, which explains why they are controversial. But in general, America is the only country in the world that extends full membership to outsiders. The typical American could come to India,live for 40 years, and take Indian citizenship. But he could not "become Indian." He wouldn't see himself that way, nor would most Indians see him that way. In America, by contrast, hundreds of millions have come from far-flung shores and over time they, or at least their children, have in a profound and full sense "become American."

-- America has the kindest, gentlest foreign policy of any great power in world history. Critics of the United States are likely to react to this truth with sputtering outrage. They will point to long-standing American support for a Latin or Middle Eastern despot, or the unjust internment of the Japanese during World War II, or America's reluctance to impose sanctions on South Africa's apartheid regime. However one feels about these particular cases, let us concede to the critics the point that America is not always in the right.

What the critics leave out is the other side of the ledger. Twice in the 20th century, the United States saved the world -- first from the Nazi threat, then from Soviet totalitarianism. What would have been the world's fate if America had not existed? After destroying Germany and Japan in World War II, the United States proceeded to rebuild both countries, and today they are American allies. Now we are doing the same thing in Afghanistan and Iraq. Consider, too, how magnanimous the United States has been to the former Soviet Union after its victory in the Cold War. For the most part America is an abstaining superpower; it shows no real interest in conquering and subjugating the rest of the world. (Imagine how the Soviets would have acted if they had won the Cold War.) On occasion the United States intervenes to overthrow a tyrannical regime or to halt massive human rights abuses in another country, but it never stays to rule that country. In Grenada, Haiti and Bosnia, the United States got in and then it got out. Moreover, when America does get into a war, as in Iraq, its troops are supremely careful to avoid targeting civilians and to minimize collateral damage. Even as America bombed the Taliban infrastructure and hideouts, U.S. planes dropped food to avert hardship and starvation of Afghan civilians. What other country does these things?

-- America, the freest nation on Earth, is also the most virtuous nation on Earth. This point seems counterintuitive, given the amount of conspicuous vulgarity, vice and immorality in America. Some Islamic fundamentalists argue that their regimes are morally superior to the United States because they seek to foster virtue among the citizens. Virtue, these fundamentalists argue, is a higher principle than liberty.

Indeed it is. And let us admit that in a free society, freedom will frequently be used badly. Freedom, by definition, includes the freedom to do good or evil, to act nobly or basely. But if freedom brings out the worst in people, it also brings out the best. The millions of Americans who live decent, praiseworthy lives desire our highest admiration because they have opted for the good when the good is not the only available option. Even amid the temptations of a rich and free society, they have remained on the straight path. Their virtue has special luster because it is freely chosen.

By contrast, the societies that many Islamic fundamentalists seek would eliminate the possibility of virtue. If the supply of virtue is insufficient in a free society like America, it is almost nonexistent in an unfree society like Iran's. The reason is that coerced virtues are not virtues at all. Consider the woman who is required to wear a veil. There is no modesty in this, because she is being compelled. Compulsion cannot produce virtue, it can only produce the outward semblance of virtue. Thus a free society like America's is not merely more prosperous, more varied, more peaceful, and more tolerant -- it is also morally superior to the theocratic and authoritarian regimes that America's enemies advocate.

"To make us love our country," Edmund Burke once said, "our country ought to be lovely." Burke's point is that we should love our country not just because it is ours, but also because it is good. America is far from perfect, and there is lots of room for improvement. In spite of its flaws, however, American life as it is lived today is the best life that our world has to offer. Ultimately America is worthy of our love and sacrifice because, more than any other society, it makes possible the good life, and the life that is good.

----------------------------------------------------

Dinesh D'Souza's "What's So Great About America" has just been published in paperback by Penguin Books. He is the Rishwain Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. E-mail: 1c.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/06/29/IN290713.DTL#ixzz0Vvm6XL2O