Wednesday, December 30, 2009

LA Times/The Unbending China 洛杉矶时报/死硬中共国

陈凯一语: Kai Chen's Words:

www.kaichenblog.blogspot.com

Tiananmen Square Massacre and the jailing of Mr. Liu for advocating freedom of speech demonstrate time again one fact: The progressive change for China in the future can only be a revolution, a revolution to end despotism/tyranny imposed on the Chinese people by the communist party. The despotic symbols such as the image of Mao or the Chinese national flag should be dumped into where they belong - the trash can of human history. --- Kai Chen

天安门大屠杀与以言治罪判处刘晓波11年监禁再一次说明了共产专制的不可改良性。 中国未来的良性转变只能通过共产专制倒台的途径实现。 共产专制的标志如毛像与五星血旗必须被抛在人类历史的垃圾箱里。 --- 陈凯


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

Editorial LA Times

LA Times/The Unbending China 洛杉矶时报/死硬中共国

The government is wrong to jail Liu Xiaobo for advocating peaceful change. But freedom and democracy are subversive and cannot be locked away forever.


December 30, 2009

A Beijing court last week convicted activist Liu Xiaobo of subversion and sentenced him to 11 years in prison for advocating freedom, democracy and rule of law. This week, the Chinese government executed Briton Akmal Shaikh for heroin trafficking, despite a plea for clemency by the British government on grounds that he was mentally ill. The two cases are unrelated, except insofar as they illustrate China's immunity to international appeals to respect human rights. And yet, even as the country's growing economic and political clout has made it more confident in global affairs, it has become no less fearful of challenges from within. Rising China is no more willing to brook dissent these days than its smaller neighbor, Vietnam, which is putting pro-democracy activists on trial, or than the Islamic government of Iran, which has been confronting street demonstrations for months.

In the last two years, the Chinese government has cracked down on Internet sites, lawyers, consumer advocates and human rights activists, particularly after the collapse of poorly constructed schools in the Sichuan earthquake and the tainted milk scandal in 2008. Liu is a brave democracy advocate and no stranger to jail; he was sent to prison for 21 months after the Tiananmen Square protests in 1989, and to a labor camp in 1996 after demanding clemency for others still imprisoned. This time, the government seized on his pro-democracy articles published on foreign websites and his role in coauthoring Charter 08, a manifesto for political reforms. The document, signed by 300 Chinese intellectuals and activists when it was published on Dec. 10, 2008, calls for expanded freedoms of religion, assembly and speech. "We should end the practice of viewing words as crimes," it says. It also calls for a new constitution ensuring an independent judiciary, direct election of local and national officials based on "one person, one vote," and respect for human rights.

The Chinese government's unfortunate response was summed up in a speech by the vice minister of public security, published Monday, in which he lashed out at "hostile forces stirring up chaos" and advocated "preemptive attacks" against challenges to Communist Party control. The government is wrong to jail Liu for his beliefs. It is wrong to brand Liu a subversive, when he is a peaceful dissident advocating peaceful change, not the overthrow of the government. But perhaps it is right about one thing: The ideals that Liu espouses so effectively do pose a threat to the Communist Party's monopoly on power. Freedom and democracy are subversive, and cannot be locked away forever.

Copyright © 2009, The Los Angeles Times

Monday, December 28, 2009

Dictatorships and the Olympics: 1936 and 2008 那夫罗佐夫转载我给布什的信

www.kaichenblog.blogspot.com

陈凯一语: Kai Chen's Words:

I recently reprinted some articles of Lev Navrozov from World Tribune on my blog. But I have not known he had already reprinted my letter to President Bush back in 2007. It looks like we are always together in spirit. I am very thankful for that. --- Kai Chen

我最近在我的博客里转载了那夫罗佐夫的一些文章。 但我刚刚得知他在2007年就已在世界焦点导报转载了我给布什总统的信。 这好像我们一直在精神上就有沟通,尽管我们那时还没有认识。 对此我深表惊诧与感恩。 --- 陈凯


http://www.global-sisterhood-network.org/content/view/2077/59/
-------------------------------------------------------
Monday, October 15, 2007

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2007/lev10_26.asp

Dictatorships and the Olympics: 1936 and 2008 那夫罗佐夫转载我给布什的信

(Lev Navrozov emigrated from the Soviet Union in 1972 He settled in New York City where he quickly learned that there was no market for his eloquent and powerful English language attacks on the Soviet Union. To this day, he writes without fear or favor or the conventions of polite society. He chaired the "Alternative to the New York Times Committee" in 1980, challenged the editors of the New York Times to a debate (which they declined) and became a columnist for the New York City Tribune. His columns are today read in both English and Russian.)

The Olympics of 1936 took place in Germany. In 1938, Hitler was generally regarded in the West as a cofounder of the Munich “peace in our time” agreement. So in 1936, the peaceful Munich high hopes connected with him still lay ahead. The 1936 Olympics were to bring about warmer social ties between him and the victims of his forthcoming attacks. No wonder President Roosevelt attended the Games.

Three years later Hitler was waging a world war for world domination. To prevent, after his debacle near Moscow, his subordinates’ betrayal of him to the English-speaking countries, he secretly ordered them to begin the extermination of Jews so that his subordinates, not him, looked in the U.S.–British eyes as the heinous criminals, while he as having known nothing about the “final solution.” Fortunately for his enemies, he ran out of resources to continue his development of nuclear weapons, the key to global domination.

Such was the post-history of the 1936 Olympics.

As for the Olympics of 2008 in China (Aug. 08-24), the Human Rights Watch began its section of Aug. 2, 2007, in Yahoo! (see http://chinahrw.org) with the following utopia in big type:

The 2008 Beijing Olympic Games are a historic opportunity for the Chinese Government to show the world that it has the confidence to make tangible and sustainable progress in ensuring basic human rights for its 1.3 billion citizens.

I feel that this utopia is so utopian that any sarcastic remarks of mine in the past decades concerning the march of China’s dictatorship toward “basic human rights” would be anticlimactic.

The dictatorship of China holds Olympics for the same purposes Hitler held them in 1936.

On October 11, 2007, at a special conference of the Carnegie Foundation for International Peace, Bob Dietz, the Asia Program Coordinator of the Committee to Protect Journalists, spoke about the persecution of China’s journalists in China. He gave no statistics concerning the journalists tortured by the dictatorship of China. But he said that China had been leading the world since 1999 “in the number of jailed journalists.” Yet despite this “world record” (by no means Olympic), “in 2001, the International Olympic Committee awarded the Games to China.”

The public communications in China are not created by journalists themselves. Certainly, Zhao Yan did not create either the New York Times, or its Beijing bureau, or his job as a researcher in that bureau. Yet he was imprisoned in 2004 for a New York Times (correct) prediction that Jiang Zemin would retire as the head of the military commission.

Chen Kai, a former Chinese national basketball-team player, now in Washington D.C. (correction: I live in Los Angeles), published on Sept. 28, 2007, in Chinaview and The Epoch Times (both “dissident publications”) his letter to President Bush, calling him to “join our Olympic Freedom Run,” to “clarify your moral standing and solidarity with freedom-loving people in China”:

The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500



Dear President Bush:

As the 2008 Beijing Olympics fast approach, we as freedom-loving people realize as that time comes, we are standing at the threshold between human freedom in our future and human despotism from our past. Having learned that you had accepted an invitation from Mr. Hu Jintao to attend the opening ceremony of the 2008 Beijing Olympics, I like to extend my invitation to you to join our “Olympic Freedom Run” in Washington D.C. on September 30, 2007 from the Memorial of Communism Victims to the Lincoln Memorial.

As a former Chinese National Basketball Team player, I feel compelled by my conscience to speak out — not just to speak out against oppression, slavery and human degradation, but to speak out for human freedom, for hope, for a better tomorrow. I am speaking out not just for those innocent lives perished under the communist regime, not just for those who still suffer under the same oppressive regime of the Chinese communist government, but also for those who are suffering under all kinds of despotism, old and new, in the world.

Chen Kai recalls the 1936 Berlin Olympics:

History should not repeat itself, and we as free people will make sure that Olympic spirit is nothing but the spirit of human freedom, Not opium to induce illusions for despotism and tyranny. Any government that wants to use the Olympics for its own oppressive and reactionary policies against human freedom should be put into the spotlight and have its evil exposed. The 2008 Beijing Olympics should be an example of how the cause of human freedom is pushed forward by the Olympic movement, not pulled backward.

As an athlete with a conscience, I call upon all athletes, all coaches, all people in the athletic establishment in the world, all sports fans and all tourists who will participate in the 2008 Beijing Olympics to awaken your conscience, pluck up your courage and listen to the call from the deepest recess of your soul to join our “Olympic Freedom T Shirt” global movement.

Chen Kai correctly assumes that President Bush will not be tortured or even just imprisoned for “x” years, for wearing an “Olympic Freedom T Shirt.” Certainly not now — not yet.

When you stroll on the Tiananmen Square, under the stare of the giant portrait of Mao — the biggest mass murderer in human history, when you remember those who died in the 1989 Tiananmen massacre, wear our “Olympic Freedom T Shirt.”

Mr. President, we do not advocate boycotting the Beijing Summer Olympics. We hope that you use your presence in the 2008 Beijing Olympics to spread the message of Truth, Justice, Liberty and Dignity to all human beings on the planet earth. We want to see that you use your moral conviction, your appreciation of the human yearning for the eternal values of mankind to spread the message of hope and human freedom.

I, as a Chinese athlete with a conscience, call upon the voice in your conscience; call upon your moral courage, your action and your prayer for freedom for the Chinese people, for freedom for all the people in the world: In wearing our “Olympic Freedom T Shirt” and joining our “Olympic Freedom Run,” you are expressing your solidarity and your support for the freedom-loving people in China. You are indeed building a better tomorrow for the world.

Hereby I cordially extend my invitation to you to join our Washington DC “Olympic Freedom Run.”

Sincerely,
Chen Kai

Sunday, December 27, 2009

China: predictions for 2010 中国2010年风云叵测

www.kaichenblog.blogspot.com

(The Telegraph, UK)

China: predictions for 2010 中国2010年风云叵测

After a year in which China gained international standing for leading the world out of recession, 2010 will prove a tricky 12 months at home as Beijing’s policy makers tackle the unwanted consequences of their massive economic stimulus measures.

By Peter Foster, in Beijing
Published: 12:10PM GMT 23 Dec 2009

Inflation, rising food prices, graduate unemployment and a property bubble are all mounting concerns.

Abroad, increasing demands for China to take a more responsible role on the world stage lead to some delicate decisions over how to deal with Iran and North Korea.

Trade frictions deepen between China and the US and EU.

But on the snooker tables of the Crucible Theatre in Sheffield, China’s Ding Junhui racks up a famous sporting victory.

Economy

2010 opens with another massive loan splurge as Chinese banks get lending before Beijing - as widely predicted - starts to tighten the loose fiscal and monetary policy in the third quarter. Property and stock bubbles continue to inflate.

Rising inflation puts pressure on Beijing to abandon its de facto dollar peg for the renminbi and allow its currency to appreciate in the second half of the year. However, the gain of 3-4 per cent against the dollar is not enough to prevent a record number of trade spats with the US and EU.

Iran

Despite growing pressure from the US, China refuses to back tough sanctions against Iran, one of its largest oil and gas suppliers and key strategic partner in the Middle East. Moscow softens its line, but Beijing is unmoved. The US and its allies are forced to choose between watered-down sanctions and no sanctions at all.

Expo

The 2010 World Expo, dubbed China “economic Olympics”, opens in Shanghai. China’s massive pavilion is widely admired. Britain’s effort – a giant cube bristling with fibre-optic rods - isn’t bad either. The wider world – much to China’s chagrin, having spent more than £30 billion on the project – doesn’t really notice.

North Korea

After much diplomatic shuttling, hopes that North Korea will return to the six party talks on nuclear disarmament come to naught. It’s clear that Pyongyang is not serious about giving up its nukes and the US is not interested in more unproductive negotiations. China, having played its part, is quietly relieved to be spared the loss of face that would come from the talks’ inevitable collapse.

Sport

Chinese snooker star Ding Junhui capitalises on a rich vein of form to win his first World Snooker Championships title at the Crucible in April. His victory is a breakthrough for the popularity of the game in China and the launch-pad for a succession of Chinese champions in the coming decade.

Taiwan

China and Taiwan sign a free trade agreement despite Taiwan’s pro-China president Ma Ying-jeou facing mounting opposition at home. China’s fears that Ma will lose office in the 2012 presidential elections to a pro-independence candidate help expedite the deal.

Meanwhile Barack Obama signs off on a raft of arms sales to Taiwan – but not the coveted F16 fighter jets. Beijing issues a furious denunciation of the decision and suspends military-to-military ties - but only for a few months.

Friday, December 25, 2009

Ramifications of U.S.-China peace 'partner'ship for the future of Homo sapiens 中共国将统治无核世界

陈凯一语: Kai Chen's Words:

If Obama's nuclear-free world truly comes into being, China will dominate mankind on earth with its cruel slave culture and vast slave man-power. The stupidity of Obama's utopian illusion will lead to the end of the free world as we know it. --- Kai Chen

如果奥巴马的无核世界幻梦真的实现了,中共国将用它的非人的奴文化与众多的“华奴”主宰世界。 奥巴马左派的乌托邦幻梦,说到底,就是自由世界与自由人的噩梦。 --- 陈凯


Thursday, December 24, 2009 www.kaichenblog.blogspot.com

Ramifications of U.S.-China peace 'partner'ship for the future of Homo sapiens 中共国将统治无核世界

Lev Navrozov emigrated from the Soviet Union in 1972. His columns are today read in both English and Russian. To learn more about Mr. Navrozov's work with the Center for the Survival of Western Democracies, click here.

Obama has even planned an agreement under which the countries possessing nuclear weapons would get rid of them. But it is not for nothing that he has regarded as "partners" the slave state of China and the United States.

Anyway, on September 23, 2009, Asia Pacific News came out with a big headline: "China Calls for World Without Nuclear Weapons."

The nuclear disarmament session of the UN Security Council was "to be presided over by Obama," while "China's President Hu Jintao" addressed the UN General Assembly, and reiterated Beijing's call for a complete prohibition and thorough destruction of nuclear weapons."

Very advanced! But what about torture to death applied for all the world to know to those Chinese who dared to play their pantomimes, ascending to Zen Buddhism, that is, "Chinese Buddhism," and becoming known in contemporary China as Falun Gong?

"Turning to critics of China's record on ethnic and human rights and religion issues, Hu called for tolerance in society." "We should acknowledge differences in cultural tradition, social system and values and respect the right of all countries to independently choose their development paths."

Of course! Nuclear bombs destroy property, buildings, etc. But General Chi explained that from one-third to two-thirds of the American population would be destroyed chemically and biologically. Hence the American cities will be able to receive their new Chinese dwellers, who are racially superior to the Americans, one-third to two-thirds of whom are to be killed chemically or biologically.

Besides, slavery instead of human rights for the Chinese in the post-1949 China is not only "their development path," but the path of all slave states in history. Historically, there is nothing fundamentally new or different about the post-1949 China as compared with Stalin's Russia or Hitler's Germany.

Hu is against nuclear weapons? Not impossible! The stock of nuclear weapons in China is smaller than that in Russia or the United States.

If China uses its small stock on the United States or Russia, either country will use their vast stock of nuclear weapons on China and wipe it off the earth. On the other hand, it has been found that it takes 20 grams of super thermotoxic generic weapons to bring death to the 5.5 billion people, that is, the population of the globe.

Imagine what it will cost if nuclear weapons are used instead. Besides, nuclear weapons would destroy all that city property with which the China slave soldiers are to be rewarded.

The Western Europe, including even Hitler's Germany, evaded chemical and biological weapons! For China, they (and not nuclear weapons!) are the basis of the future war.

No doubt we witness a new era in the history of Europe and Eurasia for thousands of years. Listen how arrogant is Hu, China's owner or one of the owners. The rules of life in the slave state of China are determined strictly within the slave state and regardless of any rules of life outside it.

This slave state, whose population exceeds that of the United States more than four times, is developing a global armed force which can be at least four times more numerous and powerful than that of the United States. China also will have an especially powerful outer space force with which it will be able to attack the United States and Europe. In the nineteenth century, Britain defeated China in two wars and thus forced China to abolish its prohibition on buying opium. China used to be considered a militarily backward country due to its vast rural population. Now China, with its 1.330 billion people, threatens Europe, including Britain-and the United States!-precisely due to its more than four times larger population than that of the United States, and hence ultimately able to produce at least four times more developers and users of the latest weapons.

Chi Haotian showed in his speeches that China prefers chemical and biological weapons, whose production has been universally forbidden in the west for moral reasons. The owners of China want to attack the enemy human power rather than the enemy buildings. The latter can be used to accommodate the victorious Chinese slaves. On the other hand, Russia and the U.S. have more nuclear weapons than China. Their nuclear attack on China may lead to the devastation of the attacked country. The possibility of the exchange of such devastations may lead to world peace, but the owners of China are not after world peace-they are after the world Chinese empire.

WW3 may be as dynamic as were WW1 and WW2, but in terms of science and technology, WW1 and even WW2 would seem antediluvian.

What about the outcome? For the free countries, the defeat of the free world would mean death or slavery after martyrdom. History would have to begin anew. The ultimate result? Perhaps, there will be no return to anything humane, creative, great. The Chinese World Empire will bring death or slave afterlife to a free civilization, the only one known on our globe.

Much has been said and written in the West about the vanity of that part of a wealth which is beyond the use to its owner and/or his or her progeny. The vanity of power such as one owner's ownership of millions or billions of slaves is infinitely more vain, to say nothing about its subhuman cruelty. China's world slavery must be resisted by the free countries not only for the sake of their own future, but also for the future of Homo sapiens, as Human being has been known in the West since the fourteenth century.

To expect that the potential owners of the world will give up their drive for the globe for the sake of general wealth of mankind is more naïve than to expect that those whose income in a Western country is above 10 percent of the statistical average will distribute the 10-percent excess so that everyone's income would be strictly equal to everyone else's.

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

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.

Thursday, December 24, 2009

China's strategic alliance with Iran is off most radar screens

Tuesday, December 22, 2009

China's strategic alliance with Iran is off most radar screens

By Fariborz Saremi

Since the 1990s China has successfully been expanding its influence in the Middle East and Iran in particular without attracting the attention of the global community.

China views Iran as a significant potential ally in its attempts to counter-balance western power. Clearly Iran serves as a major source of oil. In addition, it is a leading geopolitical player in the region, capable of heavily affecting the political balance in the Middle East.

In addition to energy, China is extensively involved in many areas of Iran's economic development. To help develop Iran's economy, empower it, and open up consumer markets for Chinese-made goods as well as investment opportunities have become China policy priorities. More than 100 Chinese state companies are working in Iran to help build infrastructure projects-highways, ports, shipyards, airports, dams, steel complex and more.

One becomes impressed by the supply of inexpensive Chinese products in the supermarkets and department stores of Tehran and other large Iranian cities like Esfahan, Shiraz, Tabriz and Mashhad. Two-way trade reached $ 11 billion in 2008.

China, Russia and Iran have all become major players in the Asian Energy Security Grid, which was established to counter perceived Western hegemony over the World's energy resources. Furthermore Iran is a passive member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, which sets out to promote Beijing's interests. Established in June of 2001, the SCO is an expansion of the "Shanghai Five, a regional grouping begun in 1996. China appears to be receptive to Iranian efforts to expand its role in this grouping.

The national interests of Iran and China are in clear contradiction to the presence of the American military forces in Central Asia. Its members are China, Russia, Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. Many observers believe that one of the original purposes of the SCO is to serve as a counterbalance to NATO.

Since the 1980s Iran's eagerness to bolster its military and its weapons production capabilities has been given considerable assistance by China, which is very cleverly gaining influence and popularity by transferring arms technology. These arms sales have earned China billions of dollars and billions of gallons of oil through "oil for arms" schemes and enabled Iran in its sponsoring of insurgents and Shiite terrorists in Iraq and other Persian Gulf states. Thus, Iran is now a major threat to the Arab states, Israel and even the USA.

The serious military hardware China has supplied to Iran has included over $1 billion dollars worth of Silkworm cruise missiles, some of which were fired at two U.S. oil tankers in 1987 in the Persian Gulf and the Silkworm's successor, the Chinese Eagle Strike.

Iran has a large number of Chinese made C-801 and C-802 anti-ship missiles deployed in coastal batteries along the eastern shore of the waterway, aboard ships and on island in the Strait of Hormuz. The missiles are expected to play a key role in any effort to block or control the waterway. The narrow shipping lane is ideal for the use of anti-ship missiles. Over the past several years, U.S. coalition naval forces in the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Sea have conducted a series of exercises aimed at countering possible Iranian attempts to close the Strait of Hormuz whether the Iranians use large swarms of small, high-speed armed craft or maritime suicide attacks.

Iran claims it has massed a fleet of 1000 low-tech speedboats to counter the U.S. Fifth Fleet's armada of 30-40 high-tech warships. Broadsides of cruise missiles would be more dangerous. Iran has three frigates and 20 fast attack craft including Chinese supplied Huodong boats, capable of mounting such attacks.

In 2008, Iran also again test-fired Shihab 3 missile, which it says put Israel within range. Such an intermediate range ballistic missile and much longer versions, the Shihab 4 and 5 are under development with China's assistance. On Dec. 16, Iran also test-fired what it said was a faster version of a medium-range missile which could allow it to strike Israel, drawing international censure and warnings of "serious" fallout. The Sejil 2, powered by solid fuel, is capable according to Iran of traveling 2,000 kilometers, which would put arch-foe Israel, the Arab states and even parts of Europe within range. North Korea and even China may have assisted Iran in developing this missile.

Although China has vehemently denied it, it would seem from international intelligence reports that Beijing has also been supplying Iran and other rogue states with WMD, including nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. China has reportedly been a major focus of Iranian procurement activities, with Iranian front companies successfully acquiring nuclear-related materials from China in recent years. The two countries are known to have signed nuclear accords in 1989, and again in 1991, paving the way for what would become a vibrant and multifaceted atomic partnership.

China's assistance is not just confined to hardware. Clearly China's secret services gave the Tehran regime intelligence assistance during and after the disputed presidential election in June 2009, we are informed. There has even been some hints that Russian and Chinese services have cooperated in providing the Clerics and particularly the IRGC military intelligence.

Some western observers regard China, a long time ally of Iran and a major buyer of Iranian oil and gas, as key in persuading Iran to give up its sensitive nuclear work. In reality, however, Beijing has its own agenda toward Iran and the Middle East and is reluctant to consider steps that might hurt its strategic ties with Iran and endanger its crucial economic interests.

Economically China's strategic ties with Iran have to some extent been made easier. Since Royal Dutch Shell and Respol withdrew in 2008 and France's Total announced it was to abandon its investment in a huge gas project in Iran's South Pars Field, Iran's Pars Oil and Gas Company and the China National Offshore Oil Corp. have agreed to exploit the North Pars Gas field and sell the gas on international markets.

Only Angola and Saudi Arabia supply more oil to China than Iran. China is Iran's biggest oil customer. In the future their relationship will be given long-term stability via an agreement by which China's oil giant Sinopec Group will help develop Iran's Yadavaran oil field in return for Iran's commitment to supply 150,000 barrels of oil a day for 25 years at market price.

Beijing policy toward Iran epitomizes its policy toward other major states of the Middle East region, with some variations. Arms sales, especially missiles, have been a very effective instrument in China's efforts to make inroads to the Middle East. This approach in addition to earning valuable foreign exchange, has helped China to foster diplomatic and strategic ties with Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia.

All indications suggest that China will not stop at building up strategic alliances in the Middle East and Africa, where it already has strong economic ties. It also has a significant relationship with North Korea. In South America, Panama, Venezuela and Brazil are all keen to develop closer relations with China. Brazil Indeed, in its attempts to extend its own global reach has forged links not only to China but also to Iran.

To some extent the USA has neglected China's growing influence. It has failed to recognize the skill with which China has been able to expand its geopolitical will. Iran, the new regional power in the Middle East, has at least one guaranteed ally among the permanent members of the UN Security Council.

Dr.Fariborz Saremi is a political and military analyst living in Germany. He is the spokesperson for the Azadegan Foundation in Germany and a contributor to the Defense & Foreign Affairs Special Analysis.

Monday, December 21, 2009

自由谈-中国,美国自由观对照 On Freedom - Contrast between US & China



自由谈--中国,美国自由观对照
On Freedom - Contrast between America and China

作者:陈凯 Kai Chen
6/4/2008

一位从中国大陆来的人曾激情的与激烈的与我争辩说: “美国也不是自由的。 你看,美国也有红绿灯去限制人的自由,不是吗?” 他用手指着街上的红绿灯,慷慨激昂地反驳着我。

无怪乎他是一位支持中共政府镇压1989年天安门学生抗议的人。 “不镇压国家不就乱了吗! 我们也就做不了生意了。” 他并不掩饰他的利益动机。 我周围的那些来美已久的中国生意人对他的话宜无动于衷,未置可否,用沉默来认可。

我突然意识到中美的人们对自由认知与理解的差异居然大到了针锋相对,水火不容,天壤之别的程度。 我觉得不得不插一言: “你觉得法律是去限制人与约束人的自由的,而不是去保护,保障人的自由的。你对自由如何理解? 你对人如何理解?” 他一下说不出话来,好像他是第一次想到这个问题, 也好像第一次有人问他这个问题。

他的表现使我认识到“自由”二字在中国从来就被误解,曲解,反解。 因而中国人也从来就怕自由,厌自由,排自由,逃避自由,甚至憎恨自由。 俗化自由,丑化自由,将自由负向解义一直是中国专制政权,专制政治文化毒化人灵,毒化人脑的有效的强力手段。 在这里我想用相当的篇幅去论述自由的概念,去传播自由的理念,去大声地宣扬自由的价值,去无畏的,无羞的,无束缚的为自由的精神高声唱赞。 我也希望有一天中国的人们也会像美国的人们一样,加入到世界自由大军的行军行列中去,激情地去热爱自由,勇敢地去追求自由,清晰地去传播自由,坚定地去捍卫自由。

自由(Freedom, Liberty)是由西方语言翻译而来。 中国文化,文字从未产生自由的概念。 自由是上帝赋予人的,而不是皇帝与国家政府贱予奴的。 在一个没有上帝与人的社会里自然就不可能有自由的概念的产生。 这是一个必然的逻辑。 在一个只属于皇帝与国家政府的社会里,“奴”的产生与泛滥是一个必然。 “奴”是一个压迫体(与或)被压迫体对自由的反动。 有奴处定无人,定无自由。 在一个属于皇帝与国家的社会与群体文化中,“人”是不存在的。 无人的社会自由便无处依附。 无 “上帝”的社会自由便无从起源。 自由没有主谓便是虚无。 中国的寺院,庙堂中到处可见是“虚”,“无”,“空”三字,就是因为无“人”的逆向价值只能用“虚无”作解。 “虚无”从有中国起便是所有中国人追求的伪价值,基其反价值的定义。 “三国”,“水浒”,“红楼梦” -- 从“大江东去浪淘沙” 到 “招安侍皇” 到 “空空道人”-- 无一不是反人,反上帝,反自由,反存在的崇尚“虚无”的奴役制下的产物。

在纽约的洛克菲洛中心有一块刻着洛克菲洛本人信仰名言的石碑。 那上面的第一句话是用最大的字母写成: “I believe in the supremacy of the individual.” (“我坚信个体价值的至高无上。”) 自由作为价值的前提是“个人意志”。 无个人便无选择与意志可言。 个人是自由的基点。 群体的自由是专制政治文化制造的伪自由,因为无个体的群体是否认个体,压抑个体的虚无。 而虚无是与自由格格不入的。 自由只对存在的实体有意义,而任何存在的实体只能是个人。 上帝只能通过个人将生命,灵魂,自由传给人间。 世上从无群体灵魂,从无“国魂”,“民族魂”, “种族魂”。 由此世上也不可能有“国格”,“民族感情”,“民族品质”。 “群体特质”也只能是学术词汇供理解某种概念而用,而绝不能泛化到个人的品质鉴定上, 或个人存在的定位上。 中国的所谓 “群体自由” 是中国专制骗人的产物,是中国式文化毒品的一个基点组成部分。 个群不分,本末倒置是中国人“难得糊涂”心理情结的起源。 以个袝群,以群压个的社会即没有自由,也不会将自由作为价值。 在这种社会里,只有代表群体的国家,政府与皇帝才是价值的准则。

既然自由是天赋的,是上帝赐予人的基本权利,(生命与对幸福的渴望与追求是其他两个上帝赋予的基本权利。)国家,政府与法律的建立只能是以保卫这种权利为动机和基点的。 宪法的建立就是在最大程度上去保障与扩大个人的自由,并在最大程度上限制政府与群体的权力为目的与始发点的。 中共政府制造的“发展权”,“生存权”是相反的、旨在无限扩大政府与群体权力的、专制的伪词汇。 这种伪词汇所宣扬的伪价值旨在否定个人,否定存在,否定真实价值并对专制政府的滥用权力制造理论依据。 由此中共政府基于反价值(保政府)而设立的宪法只能是一部伪宪法。 一个没有个人自由的国度是伪国度。 一个不基于个体而基于群体(人民、大家)的政体、政治是伪政体、伪政治。

无意义的、伪意义的语言腐蚀人的精神和思想。 在中国俗化,伪化、反化、虚化“自由”这个字眼的时候,我只想在此真化、实化、正化、价值化“自由”。

自由来自上帝,来自天赋。自由落实,赋义在个人。 这是自由的来龙与去脈。 人所创造的一切政治实体与机构的唯一目的就是保障与扩大人的自由。 那么自由意味着自由于什么呢?
自由于其他人。 自由于其他人的干预,压抑,阻挠与伤害。 这是自由的唯一内涵。 人不能自由于人性,也就是不能自由于上帝。 人自由于上帝所赋与的性质与特征便不配称人:

自由于灵魂的人是鬼;自由于头脑,理性,智慧的人是痴呆的残疾;自由于欲望的人便不能生存与繁衍;自由于感情的人便不能有健全的心理;自由于尊严的人不能赢得尊重;自由于权利的人永远受辱作奴;自由于独立个性的人永无成就感;自由于个人意志的人永不知选择与责任;自由于良知的人永无道德指南与方向并走入恶性循环;自由于自由的人永远痛苦,烦恼,绝望与虚无。

中国人对自由的理解正是对美国人(西方)对自由理解的反动反向: 中国人的“自由”正是要自由于上帝所赋予人的性质与特征,正是要把个体的自我依附于他人作为“中国人”对自由的定义。 这就是为什么在美国(西方)承认人的个性与特质的时候,中国人却一味迷恋在儒家等级伦理与人的优点和缺点上。 只有首先面对上帝而建立绝对道德价值准则的社会才会承认人的个性与特质并发挥每个人的天才。 迷恋在等级观念与人的优点缺点上的社会一定是没有上帝只有国家群体的社会: 人在这种社会里被由群体口味价值而建立的“优点缺点说”而将个性灭绝。 个性的灭绝加剧了“奴”,“虚人”,“伪人” 对上帝的诋毁和对群体祖先的崇拜。 群体,祖先,国家,政府,人民,皇上变成了伪上帝。 “全面”和“成熟”成为了这种无上帝社会,无“神”国,无“人”民的口头语和群体奴隶,政府奴隶特质的定义。 虚无宏大的“祖国”(Ancestral Land)成了中国人顶礼膜拜的“伪神”也就不足奇了。

自由作为一个绝对价值和天赋权利并不保障自由的人都能幸福,只保障人对追求幸福的权利和得到幸福的可能性。 一个无自由的奴隶既没有这种权利,也没有这种可能性。 一个声称保证给人幸福的国度是一个奴役制的自欺欺人的国度。 中国就是这样一个许诺幸福,毫无幸福,但又不许人说不幸福的社会。 它是一个人既笑不出来,也不允许哭的半死半活的社会。 这是一个人如生活在他人粪便里的蛆虫,即吃不好也饿不死的奴隶的社会。 那在自由的国度中,有没有人生活的不如意呢? 当然有。 在自由的社会里,个人们用他们的自由做出不同的选择。 每一种选择的后果自然就不同。 有人用他的时间去上学;有人用他的时间去工作;有人用他的时间去游玩;有人用他的时间去喝酒赌博、、。 人的侧重不同。 人的幸福取向也不同。 但人们都在自由的寻找,追求着幸福。 有的人找到了;有的人找不到;有的人放弃不找了;有的人一直都在找、、。 但有一点:人有找或不找的自由。 人也有选择如何找的自由。 一个奴隶永远不会有个人的成就感与满足感。 一个自由人却有找到这种成就感、满足感的可能并常常找到它们。 幸福是在一个人实现了自己生命意义之后的一种深沉的平静。 没有基于个体的自由,幸福只能是自欺的空谈。

自由常常意味着自由的去尝试,去冒犯错的风险并承担其后果。 不冒风险,不犯错误,人就不可能真正学习与进步。 只有由自由人组成的自由社会才有进步的因素。 美国二百多年的成就超过了中国,世界其他国度几千年所取就是因为这个道理。

逻辑决定了一个自由的人往往尊重他人的自由。一个奴隶往往压抑其他奴隶。 一个自由于他人的人会释放巨大的原动力,创造力与生产力, 因为他的精神,思想与躯体是解放的,无束缚的。 他与其他人的交往与合作是主动的,积极的和有机的,建设性的。 在一个奴役制下生活的人往往是消极的,被动的,被嫉妒感支配的,有破坏心理的不幸之人。 创造,生产,探索,追求不在他的语言之中。 他的一切精力都集中在防备他人,取益他人上。 他自身并不生产价值。 他幻觉的认为价值来自群体。 他认为群体,国家,人民,政府和皇帝用天上掉下来的价值赡养了他,因此他也永远不会有主人感。

自由不是一个政治的发现,不是一个经济的发现,也不是一个哲学的发现,更不是一个科学的发现。 自由,在对结论的分析中,是一个人对终极价值信仰的发现。

一个自由的人是有坚定信仰的人。 他深知人的不完美,也由此对人的巨大潜力充满希望。 他深知自由精神的伟大并珍视自由的价值。 他绝不会卖掉自由去换取物质利益,不会去吸毒昏脑去寻求虚幻满足,不会自我阉割去卖我求忠,不会去抛弃尊严去为群所用,不会去否定个性讨好大家,更不会丧失灵魂去为皇,为国捐躯。 他捍卫着他灵,智,值,躯一体的完整。 他绝不妥协。 他只听从上苍的召唤。 他只尊崇他灵魂中的声音。 他绝不屈从强权,暴力和无知无灵的多数的暴政。 他保卫着他自身的人的权利与自由。 他绝不垂涎权力与他人所得。 他只要平等地用自己的创造与他人交换,交流。 他捍卫着他的生命,他的自由,他的财产,他的爱。 他也珍视他人对自身生命,自由,财产和爱的捍卫。

他深深地懂得自由的代价。 他深深地懂得在这世界上没有不要钱的午餐。 他深深地懂得自由是属于勇敢者,而不属于懦夫胆小鬼的。 他无所畏惧地面对那自由的代价,因为他深深地懂得: 没有自由他就永远看不到自己的价值,也就永远看不到生命的意义。 在肉体的长生不老与生命的意义之间,他将永远选择生命的意义。

他是一个真正的人,属于自己的人,尊崇上苍的人。 他是一个自由人。

Saturday, December 19, 2009

God knows why faith is thriving 上苍懂得信仰的涵义与成长

www.kaichenblog.blogspot.com

陈凯一语: Kai Chen's Words:

共产(纳粹)无神论并不是让人没有信仰,而是让人信仰“以政府为上帝/救星的无神教条”。 我从不相信一个将政府置于上苍/神之上或等同于救星的社会会有人的尊严与自由。 我们个体并不为“人或群体(政府)”所创。 我们个体的尊严与自由乃上苍/神所赋。 --- 陈凯

Communist/Socialist/Nazist proclamation of atheism is not aimed at destroying faith from human society. It is aimed at establishing a perverted faith of government as God/Savior over society. I, with my common sense, have long concluded that it is logically impossible for a society that takes government as God/Savior of the people for each individual in it to have liberty and dignity. Our rights (dignity and liberty) as human beings come only from God Almighty, not from some self-claimed Saviors such as government or majority of a collective. --- Kai Chen


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

God knows why faith is thriving 上苍懂得信仰的涵义与成长

Dinesh D'Souza

Sunday, October 22, 2006

A group of leading atheists is puzzled by the continued existence and vitality of religion.

As biologist Richard Dawkins puts it in his new book "The God Delusion," faith is a form of irrationality, what he terms a "virus of the mind." Philosopher Daniel Dennett compares belief in God to belief in the Easter Bunny. Sam Harris, author of "The End of Faith" and now "Letter to a Christian Nation," professes amazement that hundreds of millions of people worldwide profess religious beliefs when there is no rational evidence for any of those beliefs. Biologist E.O. Wilson says there must be some evolutionary explanation for the universality and pervasiveness of religious belief.

Actually, there is. The Rev. Ron Carlson, a popular author and lecturer, sometimes presents his audience with two stories and asks them whether it matters which one is true.

In the secular account, "You are the descendant of a tiny cell of primordial protoplasm washed up on an empty beach 3 1/2 billion years ago. You are a mere grab bag of atomic particles, a conglomeration of genetic substance. You exist on a tiny planet in a minute solar system in an empty corner of a meaningless universe. You came from nothing and are going nowhere."

In the Christian view, by contrast, "You are the special creation of a good and all-powerful God. You are the climax of His creation. Not only is your kind unique, but you are unique among your kind. Your Creator loves you so much and so intensely desires your companionship and affection that He gave the life of His only son that you might spend eternity with him."

Now imagine two groups of people -- let's call them the Secular Tribe and the Religious Tribe -- who subscribe to one of these two views. Which of the two is more likely to survive, prosper and multiply? The religious tribe is made up of people who have an animating sense of purpose. The secular tribe is made up of people who are not sure why they exist at all. The religious tribe is composed of individuals who view their every thought and action as consequential. The secular tribe is made up of matter that cannot explain why it is able to think at all.

Should evolutionists like Dennett, Dawkins, Harris and Wilson be surprised, then, to see that religious tribes are flourishing around the world? Across the globe, religious faith is thriving and religious people are having more children. By contrast, atheist conventions only draw a handful of embittered souls, and the atheist lifestyle seems to produce listless tribes that cannot even reproduce themselves.

Russia is one of the most atheist countries in the world, and there abortions outnumber live births 2 to 1. Russia's birth rate has fallen so low that the nation is now losing 700,000 people a year. Japan, perhaps the most secular country in Asia, is also on a kind of population diet: its 130 million people are expected to drop to around 100 million in the next few decades. And then there is Europe. The most secular continent on the globe is decadent in the literal sense that its population is rapidly shrinking. Lacking the strong Christian identity that produced its greatness, atheist Europe seems to be a civilization on its way out. We have met Nietzsche's "last man" and his name is Sven.

Traditionally, scholars have tried to give an economic explanation for these trends. The general idea is that population was a function of affluence. Sociologists noted that as people and countries became richer, they had fewer children. Presumably, primitive societies needed children to help in the fields, and more-prosperous societies no longer did. From this perspective, religion was explained as a phenomenon of poverty, insecurity and fear, and many pundits predicted that with the spread of modernity and prosperity, religion would fade away.

The economic explanation is now being questioned. It was never all that plausible anyway. Undoubtedly, poor people are more economically dependent on their children, but on the other hand, rich people can afford more children. Wealthy people in America today tend to have one child or none, but wealthy families in the past tended to have three or more children. The real difference is not merely in the level of income. The real difference is that in the past, children were valued as gifts from God, and now they are viewed by many people as instruments of self-gratification. The old principle was, "Be fruitful and multiply." The new one is, "Have as many children as enhance your lifestyle."

The prophets of the disappearance of religion seem to have proven themselves to be false prophets. Even though the world is becoming richer, religion seems to be getting stronger. The United States is the richest and most technologically advanced society in the world, and religion shows no signs of disappearing on these shores. China and India are growing in affluence, and the Chinese government is not exactly hospitable to religion, yet religious belief and practice continue to be strong in both countries. Europe's best chance to grow in the future seems to be to import more religious Muslims. While Islam spreads in Europe and elsewhere, Christianity is spreading even faster in Africa, Asia and South America. Remarkably, Christianity will soon become a non-Western religion with a minority presence among Europeans.

My conclusion is that it is not religion but atheism that requires a Darwinian explanation. It seems perplexing why nature would breed a group of people who see no purpose to life or the universe, indeed whose only moral drive seems to be sneering at their fellow human beings who do have a sense of purpose. Here is where the biological expertise of Dawkins and his friends could prove illuminating. Maybe they can turn their Darwinian lens on themselves and help us understand how atheism, like the human tailbone and the panda's thumb, somehow survived as an evolutionary leftover of our primitive past.

Dinesh D'Souza's new book "The Enemy at Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11" will be published in January by Doubleday. He is the Rishwain Fellow at the Hoover Institution. Contact us at 1c.

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

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/10/22/INGA9LRRPN1.DTL#ixzz0a9Uq619w

Friday, December 18, 2009

In his talks with the owners of China, Obama neglected to use the word 'slavery' 奥巴马本应称中国为“奴国”

www.kaichenblog.blogspot.com

陈凯一语: Kai Chen's Words:

那夫罗佐夫对所有专制国家的,尤其是对中国的定义是确切的:奴国。 奴国就是那些以个体人们为政府与国家效劳作为人生意义的国度。 --- 陈凯

Navrozov's definition of a Slave State applies to all despotic societies in the world, especially to China. A "Slave State" is a society of a population in which individuals have only one meaning/purpose in their lives -- to serve the government/state. --- Kai Chen


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

Link to Navrozov's articles: 那夫罗佐夫文章链锁:
http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2009/l.asp

Thursday, December 17, 2009

In his talks with the owners of China, Obama neglected to use the word 'slavery' 奥巴马本应称中国为“奴国”

By Lev Navrozov

"But Obama never used the words slave, slaves, slavery as applicable to slaves in China today. It is possible that his half-brother has no inner need for that freedom, which Obama described. This does not mean it exists in China. A voluntary slave is more of a slave than a slave suffering from slavery."

(Lev Navrozov emigrated from the Soviet Union in 1972. His columns are today read in both English and Russian. To learn more about Mr. Navrozov's work with the Center for the Survival of Western Democracies.)

Several years ago the speeches of Gen. Chi evoked a common accusation among American experts on China that his speeches about how the Chinese army would invade the United States and annihilate two thirds of its population were forgeries.

Today, there are 1,429,000 “results” to my inquiry in Google about how China can or will rout all of its enemies.

We learned from Western newspapers that during his three-day trip to China, U.S. President Obama met with his half-brother, who had been living and was going to live in China. On the other hand, I call post-1949 China a slave state, since the words slave and slavery should be applied not only to those to whom they were applied historically as to slaves in ancient Athens or Rome, but to all who have been denied freedom, because they are considered slaves, though the word may never be applied to them out loud. Obama, a “partner” of China, was allowed to explain to local Chinese schoolchildren and students that the freedom of speech is part of freedom banned in China. But Obama never used the words slave, slaves, slavery as applicable to slaves in China today. It is possible that his half-brother has no inner need for that freedom, which Obama described. This does not mean it exists in China. A voluntary slave is more of a slave than a slave suffering from slavery.

Who was Einstein to have been able to convince Roosevelt in 1939 that the United States and all the free countries would become part of the German world slave empire unless the United States immediately proceeded to the development of the atom bomb, which Germany was evidently already developing.

In his youth, Einstein had enrolled at a university because he needed a degree to teach even school physics and thus to make a living. He cut all classes at the university and used only its physics lab. When Hitler came to power, Einstein (a Jew) went to the United States, where he wrote a letter to President Roosevelt on August 2, 1939. He had not yet become officially an “immigrant.” So one could not even call him “Immigrant Einstein.” No! Just Einstein. The meaning of his letter was a warning: either Hitler becomes the owner of the world, since the development of the atom bomb in Germany was evidently under way, or the United States too could develop it—perhaps earlier? So, in 1945 the United States dropped two atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which made Japan, a powerful country, surrender, while in 2009, it is clear that China (population 1,330 billion) is capable of defeating the United States (population slightly exceeding 300 million) because the population of China may become developers and users of the latest weapons.

Einstein is as necessary today as he was in 1939, though nowadays the military victory is determined not by which country can produce nuclear bombs, but by which country has the largest population to produce developers and users of the latest weapons. Hitler invaded Stalin’s Russia on June 22, 1941, and soon ran out of money to adequately finance his atom project. He had been routed before his atom bomb was ready and eventually committed suicide, while the United States was able to drop atom bombs on Japan and thus to avenge itself by Japan’s surrender for Japan’s bombing of Pearl Harbor, and to stop Japan’s occupation of China.

There are inhabitants of free countries who understand the geostrategic turnover between 1939 and 2009 no worse than Einstein understood the geostrategy of 1939. The trouble, however, is that we do not have Einstein’s aura. Besides, there are too many talkers with academic degrees, dominating the media with their safe and cozy talk even when a general of an enemy country explains that three quarters of the population of their country will be poisoned and infected with a morbid disease to turn it into part of their slave world empire.

It must be obvious that unless the free countries unite into a single military whole, Gen. Chi will prove to be right: they will be annihilated due to the enormous population of China. Yes, in 1939 and earlier, a vast population of a country was regarded as a sign of its “backwardness” and hence military death. Today a vast population of a country, able to convert it into producers and users of latest weapons, is a sign of its forthcoming military victory and hence its life of a global empire at the expense of its defeated enemies.

We must expand our audience to make it national and then multinational, including, first of all, the free countries. Finally, the free countries should have their united world armed forces, able to cope with a slave population giant like China.

What about the U.S. Congress? Surely this is to where our discussions should spread.

Such will, hopefully, be our radiant future. But at present, the situation seems hopeless. The United States has never faced anything similar. The two oceans and Canada defended it against Hitler’s invasion like his war in Russia (which he lost). No non-Western country except China has such gigantic possibilities for military technology and military science, with its human base that can be turned into global military forces the scale of which the world has never seen.

In their today’s visions, the owners of China can see the world in their possession. Which and who can stop them? Nothing and no one. Which can be more desirable? For them, nothing. An American billionaire spends his life on becoming a multi-billionaire. How pathetic, compared with the ownership of the world! What are previous conquests compared with the acquisition of the globe?

What are all medical achievements compared with a possibly medically achieved immortality of the world owner? He will be God, as Stalin dreamed to be in Eastern (Orthodox) Christianity, but died and will be forgotten.

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

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.

Thursday, December 17, 2009

哪儿有自由,哪儿就是我的家 My Homeland is Where Freedom Thrives

哪儿有自由,哪儿就是我的家 My Homeland is Where Freedom Thrives

我不是“流亡者”,我是“追求者”

陈凯 12 – 17 - 2009 www.kaichenblog.blogspot.com

“I do not fear tomorrow, for I have seen yesterday and I love today.”
“我不恐惧未来(未知),因为我鉴证过过去而且我热爱现在的每一个时刻。”

我常常听到一些反共的民运人士将自己来到美国与西方称为“流亡”。 这好像在说“我到一个自由的国土上是不情愿的”或者“我并不认同美国与西方的价值”。 这也在暗示他人“我的存在是我的出生地、我的血缘、我的环境与文化决定的”。 当我感到中国的人们与“价值虚无”认同,与“血统家族”认同,与“祖宗专制文化”认同的时候,我不知是想哭还是想笑。

我在中国生活的二十八年是被在中国的人们认为“‘熬’到了成为‘人上人’”的二十八年,是我被屈辱与非人的“工具奴隶”心态折磨的二十八年,是我在与内心的逐渐死亡与默默绝望斗争而逐渐奔向心灵自由的二十八年。 我在中国的生活与心历路程证实了“自由、尊严”的存在。 我在中国的生活向我自己证实了“人”并不是其出生地、血缘血统、种族群体、环境文化的奴隶。 “人”是上苍所创的、有尊严有意义的自由体。 “人”绝不是政府、家族、群体的附庸、财产与工具。 我在中国的搏争向我自己证实了“我存在”与“我决定我的存在状态”。

我在美国生活的二十八年是我向自己再证实了“自由与幸福是可能的与可贵的”二十八年,是我回归到了人的自然状态的二十八年,是我激情地设计自我追求幸福的二十八年,是我珍惜生命中的每一刻并发现自身生命意义的二十八年。 我对美国与其所代表的价值只有尊崇与感激。 美国确实是一个“人”而不是“奴”的社会,是一个有着人的尊严与正义感而摈弃人的无奈绝望的社会,是一个“人追求幸福欢乐并实现每一个人的潜力天才的走向未来的勇者”的社会。 我只能骄傲地向世界宣称: 我生下来就已经是一个“美国人”,只是我生错了地方。

在一个“负向文化筛选”的中国,像我这样的崇尚尊严、追求自由的人只有被专制虚无文化困扰折磨、只有逐渐在心灵上默默死亡与在肉体上被专制虐杀的下场。 在一个“正向价值吸引”的美国,我激情地生活了二十八年,并在其中品尝着每一个充满意义的时刻。 我实在不懂为什么那些来美来西方已久的中国的人们非要将自己置于自己的肤色、文化、出生地、语言的困扰奴役之下,为什么将自由的美国说成是“异国他乡”而将专制的中国说成是“祖国家园”。 如果将到美国与西方说成是“流亡”,那你们追求的价值是什么呢? 如果你们不能认同美国所代表的普世终极的人的价值 – 生命、自由与对幸福的追求,那你们到底想追求什么呢?

如果“共产垮后”的中国仍旧在试图建立一个所谓“专制下的民主”、所谓“奴役下的自由”、所谓“虚无中的存在”、所谓“反美反西方的东方国度”、、,我不光不会认同这样的“新中国”,我会作为一个“美国人”与其抗争到底。

将不能定义的“中国”与不能批评分析的“中国文化”作为“圣牛”并作为一种伪宗教信仰去顶礼膜拜是一种极为有害的病态扭曲。 纵观人类,在世界历史上从没有一个向前演进的文化与宗教是不许人用其上苍所赐的道德良知、理性常识去分析评判的。 那些不许人发问、暴露、分析与评判的文化与宗教是对人有害无益的、没有前景的、僵死不化的为专制极权所用的工具与其杀人杀灵的武器。

文化(宗教)与种族是截然不同的两回事: 文化(宗教)是由后天的教育与影响而立,当然它是可以、也是必须被批判分析的(如果这种文化是有活力与前行力的话)。 种族与血缘是先天形成的、不是由个体选择而有的,所以对种族与血缘的评判只能是一种偏见与歧视。 文化可能是优秀的或邪恶的、进步的或落后的。 种族与血缘并没有好坏对错之分。

我曾说过“共产党垮后未来的中国只能是一个‘自由人’的国度,而不能是一个不能定义的、道德虚无混乱的‘中国人’的国度”。 只有崇尚人的尊严、热爱自由、追求幸福的国度我才可以认同与支持。 “被动的‘流亡’与被‘国’被‘土’被‘血’被‘祖’定义再也不能成为中国的人们对‘人’的理解与对自我的认同。 “价值”而不是“文化”将成为人们追求的目标。 “道德”而不是“伦理/礼”将成为人们行为的准则。 人将从追求中寻找意义而不是从“被流亡”、“被迫害”、“被定义”中的无奈受害者心态寻求自己与他人的怜悯与同情。 个体的主动、独立与强大将成为普遍。 个体的被动、无奈与渺小将成为过去。 “人”而不是“国”或“族”将成为新文化的行为与思维基点。 “人”而不是“民”将最终在中国这块土地上站起来。 人将永远不再在“跪着生”与“站着死”之间选择,而是在追求“站着生”中寻找生命的意义。 未来的中国人应是自由的、有道德与尊严的、“站着生”的人。 那个时候我才会骄傲地说:我是个中国人。

Wednesday, December 16, 2009

China warns West from taking up dissident case 中共国警告自由世界

www.kaichenblog.blogspot.com

陈凯一语: Kai Chen's Words:

The growing economic/political clout of China makes the Chinese communist regime more and more illusory, restless and confident in defying the free world. Hardliners in China apparently take the upper hand now due to the weakness and moral confusion of the Obama administration. Bigger confrontations will come soon. --- Kai Chen

中共国在世界上日益增强的经济与政治影响使中共政权对自由世界越发蔑视、越发强硬、越发自我幻觉化。 中共强硬派显然感到了奥巴马当局的软弱与道德混乱。 更大的冲突很快就会来到。 --- 陈凯


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

China warns West from taking up dissident case 中共国警告自由世界

Tue Dec 15, 2009 8:23am EST

BEIJING (Reuters) - China on Tuesday warned Western countries against taking up the case of a prominent dissident, Liu Xiaobo, who is facing trial for subversion, after the United States and European Union called for his release.

Liu's lawyer said last week that Chinese prosecutors had decided to try him on charges of "inciting subversion of state power" for publishing essays critical of the ruling Communist Party and helping organize a petition demanding democratic transformation.

Liu has been among his country's best known critics of restrictions on citizens' rights, and was detained late last year while helping oversee the launch of the "Charter 08" petition for political change.

The European Union urged China on Monday to release him unconditionally, while the United States pressed Beijing to respect the rights of all Chinese citizens who peacefully express their desire for "internationally recognized freedoms".

But Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu said such calls amounted to interfering in the country's judiciary.

"These accusations are unacceptable. China is a country of rule of law. The fundamental rights of Chinese citizens are guaranteed by the law," she told a regular news conference.

"I want to stress that Chinese judicial bodies handle cases independently. Outsiders have no right to interfere. We oppose any external forces using this case to meddle in China's internal affairs or judicial sovereignty."

Jiang's comments underscored that her government is unlikely to heed international pressure growing over Liu, who could face trial as soon as next week. Chinese courts come under Communist Party control and rarely reject prosecution accusations, especially in politically sensitive cases.

If convicted, the 53-year-old dissident could be sentenced to up to 15 years in prison.

A former literature professor, Liu has been a thorn in the party's side since 1989 when he joined a hunger strike supporting student protesters days before the army crushed the pro-democracy movement centered on Tiananmen Square that year.

Liu's wife, Liu Xia, told Reuters on Tuesday that he had met with his lawyer on Monday and been told to prepare to stand trial "very soon."

(Reporting by Ben Blanchard; Editing by Ken Wills and Sanjeev Miglani)

Tuesday, December 15, 2009

A Memorial to Communism’s Victims in Canada 加拿大共产受害者纪念碑

www.kaichenblog.blogspot.com

陈凯一语: Kai Chen's Words:

加拿大正在筹办的“共产受害者纪念碑”项目是一个新的世界反共阵营的新进展、是一个热爱自由的人们对共产罪恶的再表达。 我希望加拿大的华人踊跃支持这一极有意义的项目。 (又:由于加拿大左派的反对,这个纪念碑在”共产主义“前将被加上“极权”二字,这有如说人要在“虎狼”前面加上“食肉”一样。 “政治上正确”真是无孔不入。)--- 陈凯

A Memorial to Communism’s Victims in Canada is to be built. This is a great development for the anti-communist, freedom-loving people world-wide. I only hope the Chinese-Canadians will support this great project with enthusiasm and moral righteousness. (PS. To add the word "Totalitarian" in front of "Communism" is like to add the word "carnivore" in front of the word "tiger". Political correctness kills all the common sense.) --- Kai Chen

A Memorial to Communism’s Victims in Canada 加拿大共产受害者纪念碑


– by Jamie Glazov

(Jamie Glazov is Frontpage Magazine's editor. He holds a Ph.D. in History with a specialty in Russian, U.S. and Canadian foreign policy. He is the author of Canadian Policy Toward Khrushchev’s Soviet Union and is the co-editor (with David Horowitz) of The Hate America Left. He edited and wrote the introduction to David Horowitz’s Left Illusions. His new book is United in Hate: The Left's Romance with Tyranny and Terror. Email him at 1c.)

Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Alide Forstmanis, the chair of Tribute to Liberty, a new organization based in Toronto that seeks to have a memorial built in Ottawa to the Victims of Communist Crimes, by November 2010.

FP: Alide Forstmanis, welcome to Frontpage Interview.

Forstmanis: Thank you, I am grateful to FPM for this opportunity to inform its readers about Tribute to Liberty.

FP: Tell us about this memorial you are planning.

Forstmanis: We want a memorial built in our nation’s capital Ottawa to the victims of communism, a commemoration to the more than 100 million who were subject to the denial of their fundamental rights and freedoms, to torture, to deprivation, and to murder.

We are doing our utmost to have it ready next year. You might ask, why the rush? It took 15 years to complete a similar monument in Washington DC. The answer is very practical: we do not have those years available here. The fact is that many of the Eastern European victims of communism have passed on and those who are still alive are getting very old. We would like as many as possible of them to have a chance to see the monument. The 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin wall in November has re-inspired our cause.


FP: What is your own personal background that explains your dedication to this issue?

Forstmanis: Both my parents are Latvian, but I was lucky to grow up in Sweden. Almost all of our relatives stayed in Latvia and some were also sent to Siberia. Living in Sweden I envied those that had cousins or other relatives living nearby, as we were just the four of us – my parents, my brother and me. I missed growing up with an extended family. Although that family lived on the other side of the Baltic Sea, only about 150 km away, it seemed very far, one could really sense a wall. I remember my parents listening to “Voice of America” and the other news sources that were being jammed by the Soviets – so our relatives in Latvia wouldn’t hear them. Our correspondence with Latvia was censured by the Soviets, and telephone calls were complicated to make, due to Soviet technical backwardness. In sum, communication was difficult.

For us in Sweden, very little, if anything was taught in the Swedish schools about the Baltic States, and to us it seemed as if to Sweden and the rest of the world these states hadn’t ever existed. Balts where often called “Russians”. And if you were not a Swedish citizen you were a “stateless Soviet Russian” citizen, and needed a visa to be able to travel internationally.

These experiences left me with a strong sense of my Latvian roots, and with a feeling of urgency to respond to what was going on. I then became involved in the Latvian communities in the various places I lived – Sweden, the UK, Germany and Canada – and I have seen the passion and conviction the survivors, including my parents, have had and the need they felt to inform the world about communism’s evils. The least I can do is try to get their suffering recognized here in Canada.

FP: What is the importance of monuments such as these?

Forstmanis: A monument like this will be a recognition by Canada of the determination of millions to come to a country like ours that celebrates liberty and opposes the oppression of totalitarian communism. This recognition will also help us remember the suffering that many of those Canadians endured, as well as the suffering of the millions who couldn’t come, and of the many millions that perished in the Gulag. Further it is also important for Canada’s future generations, to understand different Canadians’ backgrounds and history and bring a better understanding of each other. This monument will hopefully generate curiosity about communist crimes and through studies teach Canadians to be aware of and vigilant about them, and of the capacity for such evil in the world when our liberties are not protected.

FP: Why a memorial in Canada?

Forstmanis: According to 2006 Census almost 9 million of Canada’s 33 million inhabitants come from either former or current communist led countries. This is close to a third of the Canadian population. That’s an incredible number of people who can establish some kind of personal connection to lives under communist regimes. By building this memorial, Canada will show that it recognizes these connections. It will also underscore the seriousness with which we take our freedoms, our democracy, and the rule of law we are privileged to have.

FP: Why do you think there is so much resistance in our society to talking/educating about the crimes of Communism?

Forstmanis: The resistance has been there for a long time. Make no mistake: communist regimes have consistently been imperialistic, genocidal, brutal, murderous, aggressive, discriminatory, destructive, oppressive, cynical – there is no end to the negative descriptors that can be used. This has frightened both governments and ordinary citizens.

Many families in the west did not dare talk openly about their families in their homelands, because it could hurt them there. Fear is a great and often very understandable motivator. In addition, communist propaganda machines like that of the former Soviet Union have been incredibly efficient around the world at hiding the evils of communism and spreading myths about the good life offered under it. Many in the west bought this rhetoric – naivety, duplicity, ignorance – who knows the reasons. Many still refuse to acknowledge the truth about communism. And then there are those that say such extreme oppression is dead and that these crimes happened a long time ago so why dwell on them.

Luckily, in the last 20 years, archives have opened up and truths have been revealed. We must continue to bring this evidence to light however, to educate people about the monumental human suffering of the last century.


FP: How do you explain this monstrous evil of communism and how it has manifested itself — and continues to manifest itself? And even after massacring more than a hundred million people and causing unspeakable pain and suffering to millions of others, there are still myriads of believers. What are your thoughts on this phenomenon?

Forstmanis: Communism has existed for well over a century as an ideology and still maintains significant power in some countries. Ideologies can keep hold for a very long time. But many wonder why communism – which was in part the inspiration for Nazism, managed to survive its brutal offspring for so long. I think part of the reason was that the West had to make the communists our allies in the Second World War. This was a necessary evil at the time, but the result was that Stalin emerged largely unscathed from public criticism in the West. This despite his horrific abuses – the Holodomor genocide of Ukrainians, the Katyn slaughter of Poland’s senior officer ranks and intellectuals, to name just a couple.

Add to that the naive romanticism associated with communists – the legacy of the fight in the Spanish civil war against the fascists, the popular portrayal of Castro and Che Guevera, the popular portrayal of Mao (despite incredible slaughter) and you see a kind of branding that is extraordinarily positive. Finally, when the Berlin Wall fell in 1989, things begin to change, but people who had witnessed many of the worst horrors were older, and all were so focused on addressing economic anarchy that there simply wasn’t the kind of attention paid to the crimes of communism that there might have been otherwise.

There was no Nuremburg, there was no Truth and Reconciliation commission – that kind of public engagement still needs to occur. But when so many were caught up in the romanticism and are embarrassed by having to confront the realities, it makes it very hard to contemplate such engagement. After all, George Bernard Shaw himself denied the Ukrainian Holodomor – saying no famine was occurring. So did New York Time journalist Walter Duranty. Such high profile endorsements are hard to ever shake free.

And then, recognize the continuing power of communism. Speak to Chinese-Canadians about the fear – the still pervasive fear – about speaking out, when you have family and friends back home. Cuban Canadians understand it, so do Vietnamese, and Koreans and Tibetans. East Europeans understand constant fear of reprimand and reprisal – they all lived it.

So all of these factors combine to create an atmosphere where there is incredible ignorance. Here in Ontario the Ministry of Education decided to include teachings of genocide into its high school curriculum. They chose to include the Armenian and Rwandan genocides, ignoring the genocides communism has committed.

But things are starting to change. For example, in Sweden, the alliance government elected in 2006 is concerned about it. The Swedish minister of education has included teachings about communist crimes in his government declaration. This was done because a poll result a few years ago showed that only 10% of people aged ~15-25 knew about the Gulag.

I believe Hollywood has done a tremendous job in exposing and teaching about the Holocaust and its victims. It is time for Hollywood to make a few movies about life in the Gulag. It’s my understanding that there has been talk about making a film about the poisoned ex Soviet spy in London UK, however for some reason that production has come to a standstill, and the film might not be completed. I mentioned Shaw before. Think about how many public figures were enamored with communism – the legacy of that remains hard to shake, and people are inclined to say oh why don’t we just move on. And today, when every one wants more trade with China, criticizing communism has economic consequences that many are afraid to deal with.

FP: Is there any opposition to your efforts? The Left must not be very supportive.

Forstmanis: We recently received approval from the National Capital Commission of both projects for the concept and its name. To our original title “Memorial to the Victims of Communism” we added the adjective Totalitarian, in response to an early concern by NCC officials that the title might target legitimate political views in support of a communist party. With this, the NCC officials took the proposal forward to their decision-making body for a monument. That body agreed to the project in principle but still found objection to the revised name, arguing that it might offend communists, that it was not politically correct, and that it should mark all forms of oppression.

Needless to say this sparked derision when it got out. The media had a field day with it, and we think the NCC suddenly recognized how absurd their complaints were. I don’t bear malice towards them: they like many others were oblivious – I go back to my earlier point about ignorance. We were able to convince the NCC that the scope and scale of abuse by communism – directly and indirectly against Canadians – was deserving of public memorial. We agreed to an amended title of “Memorial to the Victims of Totalitarian Communism; Canada, A Land of Refuge”.

We have not encountered much other resistance. I would note that we have written endorsements from Members of Parliament in the Conservative Party, the Liberal Party, and the New Democratic Party. The Communist Party of Canada has written a letter to NCC asking them to reverse their decision, but this letter itself has sparked responses already – including a recent letter from the Vietnamese community. I can not imagine NCC reversing its decision. When you think that approximately 25% of Canadians trace connections to countries currently or formerly under the fist of communism it is hard to imagine this memorial being rejected now.

FP: What do you hope the monument will help achieve?

Forstmanis: I hope it will give an incentive to people to explore and learn about communism. To see it for what it was and still is. It supposedly died 20 years ago for the West, although ByeloRussians will tell you that isn’t the case yet. And certainly its remaining outposts – particularly China – are not to be treated as of little consequence. There are several lessons I think.

First, that this was an extraordinarily evil ideology that took hold of incredibly large parts of the world and subjugated – and still subjugates – hundreds of millions to its oppression. People need to know this history and this reality – it is a part of knowing what we are and where we come from.

Second, the excesses of communist authority can exist under another name: the undermining of democratic processes by various regimes around the world – in Russia, in the middle east, in Latin America – looks awfully like communism by another name. By understanding communism and its terrible affects better, we are better able to address other oppressive regimes.

Third, I would like this monument to be a recognition for the many, many refugees from communist countries that arrived in Canada. It acknowledges and memorializes what they endured, and what those who could not follow them endured.

And fourth, and related to that last point, I would like the monument to help us remember that Canada is a land of liberty. Our great country took people in from around the world, and still does, because it believes in the fundamental dignity and worth of every individual. This liberty is to be vigilantly guarded– memorials like this can help us do that. It is important every new generation gets informed so that past mistakes are not repeated.


FP: Alide Forstmanis, thank you for joining Frontpage Interview.

Frontpage encourages all of our readers to visit Tribute to Liberty.

------------------------------------------------------
[To get the whole story on why the Left ferociously opposes a true account of, and final verdict on, communism's crimes, read Jamie Glazov’s new book, United in Hate: The Left’s Romance with Tyranny and Terror.]

Monday, December 14, 2009

Witness to a killing during live organ harvesting of Falun Gong practitioner 看中共国--活人被杀器官被盗

陈凯一语: Kai Chen's Words:

中共国官方非人的将活人杀害盗取器官的暴行是与其非法非人的性质一致的。 其残忍与骇人听闻甚过希特勒与斯大林。 期待中共国改良的人们应该醒醒了。 --- 陈凯

China's (secret) official policy of harvesting human organs while eliminating dissenting individuals is not new. But the degree of cruelty still shocks me, for it exceeds even the Nazi Germany and former USSR. Those who expect the Chinese government to reform itself should wake up now. --- Kai Chen

http://www.zhuichaguoji.org/en/index2.php?option=content&task=view&id=192

Witness to a killing during live organ harvesting of Falun Gong practitioner 看中共国--活人被杀器官被盗


December 12th, 2009

Case Summary: A special investigator of World Organization to Investigate the Persecution of Falun Gong (WOIPFG) carried on a conversation lasting almost 30 minutes with one person (“witness”). We have withheld his name out of concern for his safety. With the consent of the witness, the entire conversation was taped. The witness revealed a case of live organ harvesting on a Falun Gong practitioner that he witnessed several years ago.

Event Replay: In 2002, the witness was working for the public security (i.e. police) system of Liaoning Province, and he participated in illegal arrests and tortures of Falun Gong practitioners. Among them, a female Falun Gong practitioner in her 30s had wounds and scars covering her entire body, after one week of severe torment and forced food intake. On April 9th, 2002, a certain office of the Public Security Bureau of Liaoning province sent two military surgeons, one being a military surgeon from the General Hospital of Shenyang Military Region of People's Liberation Army and the other one being a military surgeon graduated from the Second Military Medical University. They transferred this practitioner to another place (Note 1). Under the circumstances that this female practitioner was fully conscious, without using any anesthetics, they harvested her heart, kidneys and other organs. The witness was an armed police guard by that time and witnessed the entire process of live organ harvesting.

The witness also revealed that, during the period, in which he worked for Jinzhou Public Security Bureau, the then-chief Wang Lijun of Jinzhou Public Security Bureau issued the order of “must eradicate all” in regards to the treatment of Falun Gong practitioners. The witness had participated in the illegal arrests of Falun Gong practitioners and many times severely tortured practitioners in the interrogation process to extract information. Liaoning Province is a region where the persecution of Falun Gong practitioners is very severe. Just the number of Falun Gong practitioner deaths confirmed and published by Minghui Net has reached 406. Wang Lijun is currently the chief of Chongqing Public Security Bureau, carrying on intensified persecution towards Falun Gong practitioners, under the name of “destroying mafia-like underground societies”, in coordination with Bo Xilai, the Secretary General of Chinese Communist Party’s Chongqing Committee. (For more information, please consult related reports on Minghui Net, for instance “Chongqing Wicked Policemen Intensified Persecution towards Falun Dafa Disciples”

http://search.minghui.org/mh/articles/2009/8/24/207093.html Note 2)

Note 1: During the first conversation, in order not to expose himself, the witness didn’t specify the location where the live organ harvesting took place. In the second conversation, the witness clearly indicated that the live organ harvesting took place in an operating room on the 15th floor of the General Hospital of Shenyang Military Region. It has been confirmed that from15th floor to 17th floor of the General Hospital of Shenyang Military Region are used for surgery.

Note 2: Although lacking relevant credentials and academic backgrounds, Wang Lijun serves as an analyst in the Criminal Law Office of Beijing University Law School and as a vice president of the International Forensic Medical Examiner of Heads and Faces Association. Most of his published papers were forensic medical examination of heads and faces. However, in his official resume, there is one paragraph of description that is unrelated to forensic medicine but to organ transplant: “(he) carried out the first ‘analysis of organ transplant experiment after medicinal injection’ in China”.

Partial recordings of the conversation:

Witness: A scalpel, a surgical knife at the chest. When it cut the chest, blood gushed out. It was gushing out, not…

Question: Is the person you saw male or female?

Witness: Female.

Question: Young?

Witness: Maybe in her 30s.

Question: Was she still shouting “Falun Dafa is great”?

Witness: Yes, still, she was still shouting.

Question: Please describe what she was saying at that time.

Witness: At that time, we had been interrogating and severely torturing her for about a week. She already had countless wounds on her body. Also, (we) used electrical batons to beat her. She had already become delirious. She was already beaten to .... Since she refused to eat anything, we forcefully poured milk into her stomach. She didn’t want to drink, so we forced it down. You know, when her nose was pinched, because of her basic human instincts, she had to drink the milk. Therefore, her life was maintained that way, but she lost almost 15 jin (equivalent to 7.5 kilograms) within seven days. However, we didn’t know at this time, it was possibly a certain office in the Public Security Bureau of Liaoning Province (anyway, it was a very secretive office) that sent two people over. One of them was a military surgeon from the General Hospital of Shenyang Military Region of People's Liberation Army (PLA), and the other one was a graduate of the Second Military Medical University. Specifically, one of them was relatively old, and the other one was young. They were doing something to her in an operating room of the mental hospital she was sent to. No anesthetics were used. They cut her chest with a knife without shaking their hands. If it were me, I would be shaking. Although I am an armed police, I used guns, I went through drills with authentic ammunitions, and I had seen many corpses, when I saw these military surgeons, I was really amazed. Their hands didn’t shake at all; they put on their surgical mask and cut directly. At that time, we (armed policemen) were standing on guard with a gun each in our hands. By then, she had already been opened. Then “Ah!” she shouted loudly once. Then she shouted, saying “Falun Dafa is great”.

Question: She shouted “Falun Dafa is great” when her chest was cut?

Witness: She shouted “Ah” loudly, saying “Falun Dafa is great”. She said “you killed me, one individual.” (I think) it roughly meant “you killed one individual like me. Can you kill several hundred millions of us, people that are being persecuted by you for our true belief?” At that moment, that doctor, that military surgeon hesitated. Then he looked at me, then at our (policemen’s) superior. Then our superior nodded, and he continued to do the veins… (Her) heart was curved out first, next were the kidneys. When her cardiac veins were cut by the scissors, she started twitching. It was extremely horrible. I can imitate her voice for you, although I couldn’t imitate it well. It sounded like something was being ripped apart, and then she continued “ah”. Since then she always had her mouth wide open, with both her eyes open wide. Ah… I don’t want to continue.

(Certain parts omitted.)

Witness: At that time, this person was a teacher, an instructor teaching in a high school. Her son should be almost 12 years old by now. Her husband was quite incapable (i.e. didn’t have much power). Maybe he was a factory worker. Prior to this, she suffered even greater humiliation. Many of our policemen were perverted. They were using pincers and other equipments that I don’t know from where they got them, to molest her. I have witnessed all these with my own eyes, but I regret that I didn’t take any photos. She had some good looks, relatively beautiful, (so the policemen) were raping her…this was far too common.

Question: This is what you witnessed in the police station where you stayed…?

Witness: I didn’t stay in a police station. I was in a training center, which was the backyard of a hotel. (The policemen) rented ten rooms in a small building. They would do this in a small mansion.

Question: A black jail?

Witness: More or less so.

Question: As long as they are Falun Gong practitioners, they were sent there?

Witness: Yes.

Question: Even before they were tried, they were sent there?

Witness: Anyway, we (i.e. policemen) always change places on a short notice.

(Certain parts are omitted.)

Question: You haven’t told me the specific time.

Witness: It was April 9th, 2002.

Question: April 9th?

Witness: Yes, the operation started from 5 p.m. on April 9th and lasted three hours. Before that, it continued for a month.

Question: What do you mean by “it continued for a month”?

Witness: Our interrogating and torturing of her lasted for a month.

(Certain parts are omitted.)

Question: Did you torture them once in the interrogation process to extract information or many times?

Witness: Many times. At that time, Wang Lijun, nowadays the chief of the Chongqing Public Security Bureau, ordered us “must eradicate all”.

World Organization to Investigate the Persecution of Falun Gong (WOIPFG)

Tel: 347-448-5790;Fax:347-402-1444
Mailing Address:P.O. Box 84,New York, NY,10116, USA
Website:http://upholdjustice.org/, http://zhuichaguoji.org

Saturday, December 12, 2009

A Nobel winner who went wrong on rights 奥巴马摈弃美国价值与人权

Tyranny of Majority - Democracy in Danger 多数的暴政-民主价值危在旦夕

www.kaichenblog.blogspot.com

陈凯一语: Kai Chen's Words:

不使邪恶的非法政权“丢脸”并期待与这些政权交易合作成了奥巴马当局的外交绥靖支点。 里根总统的“不给脸”与站在道德高点上的谈判导致了苏俄帝国的垮台并鼓舞了天安门广场上的民众与学生。 里根与奥巴马在道德上与政策有效性上形成了鲜明的反差。 --- 陈凯

To save face for evil/illegitimate regimes around the world and expect result in dealing with them forms the core of Obama administration's foreign policy. President Reagan's morally clear massages such as "Evil Empire" toward tyrannies around the world led to the downfall of the USSR and communism in East European countries, and inspired millions in China to defy an evil regime on Tiananmen Square in 1989. The contrast between Reagan and Obama in morality and policy effectiveness is immense. --- Kai Chen


A Nobel winner who went wrong on rights 奥巴马摈弃美国价值与人权

By Joshua Kurlantzick

Sunday, December 13, 2009

In accepting his Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo on Thursday, President Obama talked about the quiet dignity of human rights reformers such as Burma's Aung San Suu Kyi, the bravery of Zimbabwean voters who "cast their ballots in the face of beatings" and the need to bear witness to "the hundreds of thousands who have marched silently through the streets of Iran." Earlier in the week, thousands of Iranians did just that, gathering at university campuses in the most substantial demonstrations in the country since the summer, when hundreds of thousands protested Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's disputed presidential election.

But back in June, even as much of the world cheered the Iranian protesters, Obama seemed reluctant to weigh in. "It is not productive, given the history of U.S.-Iranian relations, to be seen as meddling," he said at the time. The White House may have feared that public support from Obama would allow the regime to paint the demonstrators as American stooges or might undermine U.S. efforts on Tehran's nuclear program. Such fears seemed to paralyze the administration.

The irony of Obama's Nobel Prize is not that he accepted it while waging two wars. After all, as Obama said in Oslo: "One of these wars is winding down. The other is a conflict that America did not seek." The stranger thing is that, from China to Sudan, from Burma to Iran, a president lauded for his commitment to peace has dialed down a U.S. commitment to human rights, one that persisted through both Republican and Democratic administrations dating back at least to Jimmy Carter. And so far, he has little to show for it.

The reasons for this shift are complicated. After a number of conversations with current Obama advisers and former White House officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity, I've concluded that the president's reasons for demoting human rights may have been well intentioned -- even if the strategy isn't working out as he planned.

For one thing, Obama clearly wants to distinguish himself from George W. Bush, who badly tainted the human rights agenda by linking it to the war in Iraq and by adopting an overly moralistic, evangelical tone about democracy. According to administration officials, this desire may have led Obama, early on, to be reticent about forcefully advocating democracy abroad, even as he boosted funding for democracy-promotion programs. But they believe the administration has reversed course, and they say the president is now talking more aggressively about democracy and human rights.

Some officials believe negotiating about human rights behind the scenes works better than bullying in public, since it permits nasty regimes to save face while, at least theoretically, allowing them to quietly make concessions. And some of the administration's top human rights advocates came into office focused, not unnecessarily, on cleaning up America's own abuses, from Guantanamo Bay to our rendition program -- believing that human rights advocacy starts with setting a better example at home.

In other cases, Obama seems to have decided that winning support on challenges such as nuclear proliferation and climate change means treading quietly around human rights. With China, the president may also be hesitant to risk alienating our $800 billion banker. Finally, the president seems to believe that, no matter how brutal a government he is dealing with, he can find common cause.

Yet there is little evidence that his strategy will succeed. Obama may have toned down U.S. rhetoric, but who's to say whether this will propel Iran and North Korea to halt their nuclear programs, or whether China will prove to be an effective partner on climate change. "The harder-to-fathom thing for me is why they think that cutting off support -- rhetorical or material -- to democrats and dissidents in repressive societies will gain the U.S. anything on the other agendas," said Tom Melia, deputy executive director of Freedom House, a global democracy watchdog.

On occasion, the administration has diminished the focus on democracy at some basic institutional levels. Though the Bush administration established a deputy national security adviser for global democracy strategy, Obama's National Security Council structure has explicitly downgraded the role of democracy specialists. And some parts of the government seem to be backing away from even the word "democracy." "The USAID Mission in Amman called in all its implementers (grantees and contractors alike) to announce, among other things, that the Democracy and Governance portfolio (and the titles of people in the Mission) would no longer be 'democracy & governance,' " Melia wrote in an e-mail. The United States Agency for International Development did not respond to a request for a comment.

These subtle signals have emerged even from the highest levels of the government: In testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee this year, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton highlighted "three Ds" that would allow the United States "to exercise global leadership effectively": defense, development and diplomacy. Democracy apparently did not make the cut.

The extent of the administration's shift is also visible on the ground -- even if the payoffs aren't. In Egypt, a critical arena for democratization efforts, the United States has cut funding to independent civil society groups that promote democracy and is instead working more closely with government-linked nonprofits, according to several human rights activists who closely follow Egypt. "The administration doesn't want to antagonize Egypt, a major Middle East ally, now that they might need Egypt's help if there is going to be action against Iran," said David Schenker of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, who previously worked on Middle East issues in the Bush administration.

In Sudan, a country whose leader is under indictment by the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity, U.S. policy now involves closer dealings than in recent years, and the administration's special envoy to the region, Maj. Gen. Scott Gration, has deemphasized human rights abuses there. In September, he told The Washington Post that the United States should be "giving out cookies" to Khartoum, offering inducements for good behavior rather than punishment for bad -- as if a regime accused of genocide were a misbehaving child.

Obama has changed the U.S. approach toward Burma, too. For more than a decade, Washington emphasized the use of sanctions, visa bans and other tools to isolate the Burmese junta, which is accused of overseeing forced labor, mass rape campaigns and other abuses. But the Obama administration has called for direct dialogue with the junta. And although the assistant secretary of state for East Asia and the Pacific, Kurt Campbell, has noted in congressional testimony that the administration maintains sanctions and is not writing the regime a blank check, it's not clear exactly what further bad deeds the junta would have to commit to warrant a more severe reprimand.

屎虼螂的颂歌 Sing in Praise of Dung Beetles


China's culture of moral corruption 中国道德败坏的文化
陈凯一语  Kai Chen's Words:

Recognizing reality is the prerequisite for seeking truth and building a future. Unless one has the will, the ability and the courage to recognize reality, one will be doomed to live forever in falsehood, therefore eternal despair.

承认真实的现状是寻找真理, 创造未来的必要先决条件。 如果一个人没有意愿,能力及勇气去承认真实的现状,他就会永远生活在虚假之中,也因此永远生活在默默的绝望之中。

Tolerance of difference is a virtue, but tolerance of evil is the most insidious vice there is on earth. The saddest thing for the Chinese is that they seem to have zero tolerance for difference, but unlimited tolerance for evil. They take the former as a weakness and the latter as a strength and even take pride in their own fear and tolerance toward evil. Such a tendency of moral confusion (a negative culture) can only be defined as corrupt and evil itself. --- Li Bangding (My Father, 1921 - 1988)

容忍不同是一大良德。 容忍邪恶却是一大败坏。 中国的悲哀在于中国人对不同的毫不容忍,而对邪恶的无限怯懦与忍让。 他们还不以为耻、反以为荣地将前者作为软弱,并将后者作为光荣,力量与骄傲。 这样一种道德混乱的文化只能被定义为邪恶与腐败的文化。 --- 李邦定 (陈凯的父亲,生1921 - 逝1988)


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

屎虼螂的颂歌
Sing in Praise of Dung Beetles

陈凯 著  (Written 4/2/2007, Reprint 8/28/2011)

农夫们将自己一生的积蓄带到市场上去购货。 他们想买一件东西来证实他们一生的价值。

市场上卖货的人很多。 他们有不同种族的人们,有不同宗教的人们,有不同文化的人们、、。 他们的货也是多种多样的,五颜六色,五花八门。 农夫们看花了眼,搞不清哪件货值得他们一生的积蓄。 于是农夫们就将注意力集中在卖货人的身上。

最后农夫们决定只从那个长的与他们相近的商人那里买货。 但那个商人的货都是放在一个个四四方方的盒子里的。 谁也看不到盒子里究竟是什么。 商人卖货的唯一条件是买货的人只能在回家以后才能将盒子打开。 商人并让农夫们许诺绝不退货。

农夫们想要知道盒子里到底装了什么,但又不愿从与他们长相不同的商人们哪里买货,即使那些商人们的货品是公开让顾客察看检验的。 农夫们最终决定用他们一生的积蓄去买那些装在盒子里,不能看,不能摸的货。 每一个农夫都将自己一生的积蓄买了一个盒子回家。

当他们回家打开盒子一看的时候,发现盒子里有一个用极为精巧的包装展现的棕色的圆球。 它是潮湿的,拳头大小,有些尚没消化的草叶从中滋出。 一种农夫们非常熟悉的气味从中弥漫出来。 农夫们觉得非常困惑,不知如何鉴定。 只是当他们的孩子们看到后叫出来“驴粪蛋”的时候,他们才恍然大悟。

有的农夫非常愤怒。 但他们已经许诺绝不退货。 他们知道自己受了骗,一生的积蓄已荡然无存。 他们离开了他们的祖地,不断地告诫着他们的后代不要再重犯他们的无知,偏见与愚蠢。 他们决心绝不重蹈覆辙并在新的家园建立新的正义的文化。 他们把那新的家园称之为“美德国度”。

更多的农夫们不光不觉得羞耻与受骗, 他们大骂着他们的后代们并让他们住口。 他们为他们的驴粪蛋起了一个新名称:“黄金蛋“。

他们建立了”黄金蛋“研究所,”黄金蛋“大学,不断地教育,告诫他们的后代们”黄金蛋“的伟大。 他们说黄金蛋之伟大是因为它的得来是不易的,是来自农夫们一生的血汗辛劳。 他们说黄金蛋之伟大是因为它来自”黄金驴“-- 它披着”黄金甲“,食了”黄金草“,喝了”黄金河“的水。 他们不知疲倦地,兢兢业业的将他们毕生的精力投入了”黄金文化“,有所发明地研究着为什么黄金蛋的光泽是那么亮,黄金蛋的味道是那么美,黄金蛋的气味是那么香,黄金蛋的品质是那么纯,黄金蛋的原由是那么古,黄金蛋的价值是那么高、、。 他们发明了”黄金蛋“文学并书写了一卷又一卷不朽的”黄金卷“及”黄金诗篇“,如”黄金游记“,黄金演义”,“黄金浒传”,“黄金楼梦”、、。 近代的最高的“黄金著作”叫做“黄金选集”。 自然地“黄金主义“,“黄金思想”,“黄金理论”,“黄金原则”,“黄金坚持”,“黄金代表”,“黄金荣耻”都应运而生。 他们称着“黄金帝”,舞着“黄金龙”,披着“黄金袍”,打着“黄金旗”,宣扬着“黄金特色”的“黄金主义”。 一批批的“黄金圣人”被一代代的“黄金传人”推上了“黄金祭坛”。 “黄金文化”由此不断发扬光大,一代又一代地千古流传。

那些生活在“美德国度”的人们偶然返回他们的祖地,惊异地发现他们的祖地已经没有了人的存在。 在那满地驴粪蛋的,臭气熏天的大地上,只有大大小小的屎虼螂们兢兢业业的打理着,维护着,建造着驴粪蛋的事业,弘扬着驴粪蛋的文化,唱赞着驴粪蛋的悠久与伟大。