Friday, January 29, 2010

共产革命大虐杀 – 真相纪实/陈凯 翻译 The Revolutionary Holocaust/Glenn Beck



'The Revolutionary Holocaust: Live Free or Die'

Monday, January 25, 2010

共产革命大虐杀 – 真相纪实

“不自由,毋宁死”


Translation by Kai Chen 陈凯 翻译 www.kaichenblog.blogspot.com

视频链锁: link to the video documentary:

http://lucianne.com/article/?pageid=glenn_beck_show

http://american-conservativevalues.com/blog/2010/01/glenn-beck-the-revolutionary-holocaust-live-free-or-die-01-22-2010/

译者引言 Translator’s Forewords:

陈凯博客: www.kaichenblog.blogspot.com

戈兰. 拜克 (Glenn Beck, Fox News 福克斯电视台)是当今美国社会中最具影响力的、少有的保守派主流电视主持人之一。 他也是唯一的一个有眼光、有洞察力、有勇气的将共产主义、社会主义邪恶与今天美国左翼大政府病态情结暴露于众的最具美国自由精神的电视主持人。 “共产革命大虐杀 – 不自由,毋宁死”(Revolutionary Holocaust -- Live Free or Die)揭示了共产主义、社会主义与纳粹主义的共有理论基点,并将斯大林,格瓦拉与毛泽东的革命大虐杀的反人类罪行公诸于众。 今天以 中共党朝为首的“新纳粹(民族社会主义)”与以奥巴马当局为代表的美国新社会主义回潮是世界所有热爱自由的人们应提起警觉并要奋起反击的。 我很荣幸能将戈兰. 拜克制作的“共产革命大虐杀 – 不自由,毋宁死”翻译成中文以将共产邪恶的理论基点及罪恶的真相告知中国的人们。 --- 陈凯

Glenn Beck (Fox News) is one of very few influential conservative TV hosts in America today. He is also the most perceptive and courageous American media figure to have exposed the evil of communism and socialism, along with the prevalent, pathological “seeking savior in government” complex in American public today. The TV documentary “Revolutionary Holocaust -- Live Free or Die” examines the common roots for communism and Nazism, exposes the anti-humanity atrocities committed by the socialist despots such as Stalin, Che and Mao. In the beginning of the 21st century, there has been a rise in global neo-Nazism represented by the Chinese communist regime and an attempt in America to uproot American Constitution and American spirit of individual freedom to spread a socialist mentality and to install a savior-like despotic regime, represented by the Obama administration. I am glad to be able to translate Glenn Beck’s TV documentary “Revolutionary Holocaust – Live Free or Die” into Chinese, so the Chinese speaking population in the world can learn about the truth. --- Kai Chen


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





This is a rush transcript from "Glenn Beck," January 22, 2010. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

戈兰. 拜克 制作人 1/22/2010 福克斯 新闻电视记录片 (此片可能会在将来增新内容)

GLENN BECK, HOST: Welcome to a special edition of "The Glenn Beck Program."

戈兰. 拜克: (主持人) (此后简称“戈”)

The story of America is really one of self-reliance and optimism, and profound faith. Not only in the context of religious freedom, but also in the unprecedented faith in the ability of human beings to control their own destiny.

美国的精神其实就是一个独立乐观的精神和对神(人的良知)的坚实信仰。 这个信仰不只是对宗教信仰的自由而言,这个信仰更是对人对自身命运的把握能力的前所未有的坚实信念。

And while the spirit of personal responsibility was extraordinarily strong with our founders, great patriots like Thomas Paine, he argued for redistribution of wealth right off the bat. Alexander Hamilton, he wanted a central bank. Well, they wound up losing those battles but there were plenty who kept can on fighting.

美国的建国者们有着不同寻常的由个体自由而来的强烈的个体责任感。 如汤玛斯. 佩恩: 他从一开始就已将“均贫富”逐出美国人的思维与精神了。 亚历山大. 汉默顿曾预想一个中央银行。 但像他们那样的人没有成功。 但那些人仍不死心总要卷土重来。

The Constitution kept those dogs at bay for better part of 200 years. But, eventually, those seeking a different path than the ones the founders settled on realized the only way to really defeat the Constitution was for the people to stop reading it. Progressives realized victory required changing history. To defeat them, we have to correct that.

在美国200年的大部历史中,美国宪法保持着美国精神的清廉 – 没有让“均贫富”的邪念污染人们的灵智。 但最终那些主张“均贫富”的人们意识到如要腐败人们的灵智,首先要想办法让人们再也不要读“美国宪法”了。 “均贫富”的革命家们意识到“洗脑”的重要与编造伪历史的重要。 要击败他们,我们崇尚自由的人们就要时常揭穿那些伪历史、重温真实历史。

Progressives know how powerful history is. When these truths get told and the lies get corrected, the game is going to be on. It's pulling the mask off the monster.

那些所谓“左派革命家们”懂得真实历史的力量。 当我们把这些真相告知人们并揭穿那些谎言谬误,人们就会清醒过来。 我们就是要将那些魔鬼的美妙面具撕下来。

Next week, we'll dive deeper in to the progressive script. But today, we dismantle the first act.

下个星期,我们将会继续深入地揭示那些“左派革命家们”的丑恶内在。 今天,我们先来撕下他们的第一个假面具。

We've always been told that genocidal dictators of the world — oh, they're just manifestations of the hateful right, that the left wing icons like Che and Mao and Stalin need to be understood in context.

那些关于“洗脑”的左派革命家们常常告诉人们世界上的专制极权者们都是从“右翼”来的。 那些左翼革命的偶像大亨们,如格瓦拉、毛泽东与斯大林是需要被人理解的、动机良好的进步者。

Tonight, we set the record straight.

今天晚上,我们就来看看真相是怎么回事。

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) 视频(1)开始: 『社会主义专制的渊源 – 纳粹与共产的苟同』

视频纪录片:

(MUSIC) 音乐:

BECK (voice-over): We live in a time that seems to move faster than time — a place that seems to have no place for the truth, a reality that seems to have no connection to reality. So to get our feet on solid ground in the future, we must first walk through the past with our eyes wide open.

戈: 今天我们生活在一个似乎没有时间思考的时代 – 在这个时代中似乎没有真实可言: 所谓的真实似乎与真相毫无联系。 如果我们要脚踏实地地走向未来的话,我们就必须先睁大眼睛正视我们真实的过去。

RONALD REAGAN, FMR. U.S. PRESIDENT: GOVERNMENT IS NOT THE SOLUTION TO OUR PROBLEM. GOVERNMENT IS THE PROBLEM.

前总统罗纳德. 里根:

“政府并不能解决我们生活中的难题 -- 政府本身就是我们生活中的的一个最大障碍。”


BECK: That's modern conservatism in a nutshell. Yet, we're always told that Nazi Germany, who controlled every aspect of its citizens' lives, was somehow right-wing. Is that true? Or is it an attempt to distract from other much more inconvenient similarities?

戈: 这就是我们现代右翼“保守主义”的实质内涵。 可是我们一直被今天的大众媒体洗脑告知我们说那些试图控制每一个社会个体公民思维行为的政府,如纳粹德国的政府,是所谓的右翼。 事实真是这样吗? 或者真相是正相反: 有人想混淆视听,为左翼社会主义专制大政府开路。

JONAH GOLDBERG, AUTHOR, "LIBERAL FASCISM": To say, you know, Hitler was a right-winger because of X, Y, Z, I say, what was Stalin's position on X, Y, and Z?

张纳. 歌德伯格 (“左翼法西斯”一书的作者): 如果说希特勒因为所谓的一二三的原因是右翼,那斯大林的所谓左翼的一二三与希特勒的有何不同?!

The common assumption is that the Nazis were a right-wing phenomena. They a right-wing party, that Hitler was a man of the right and all of the rest. And there are a lot of problems with this. His social agenda was for expanding universal access to health care, for expanding access to education. It was for cradle to grave welfare estate. It was for attacking big business and high finance.

俗套的理解是纳粹(民族社会主义)是所谓的“右翼”现象。 民族社会主义党(纳粹党)是所谓右翼党,希特勒之流都属于右翼。 但事实真相与这种说法绝然相反: 希特勒的社会主义纲领中极为推崇“公费健保”和“公费教育”,极为推崇“从摇篮到坟墓”的社会主义“福利社会”。 希特勒曾极力将大公司与大银行妖魔化。

People say, "Well, Hitler abolished labor unions, he was a right-wing then." Well, how did labor unions do under Stalin? How are labor unions doing under Fidel Castro? Almost anything you can find on a checklist that allegedly proves Hitler was a right-winger, you can apply to almost any one of the communist dictators of the 20th century and the similarities are almost identical.

人们常指出: “希特勒曾取缔过工会,所以他属于右翼”。 那斯大林难道没有取缔过工会吗? 难道古巴的卡斯特罗没有过取缔工会吗? 所有人们认为是属于“右翼”的特质你全部都可以在20世纪的共产极权社会中找到。 它们几乎是一个模子中筑出来的。

BECK: Today, this idea may seem controversial. But as the Nazis were rising to power, it wasn't controversial. It was common knowledge. November 28, 1925, a tiny article printed in the "New York Times" describing the early internal struggle for the identity of the Nazis. A riot broke out after a Nazi speaker claimed that Lenin was the greatest man second only to Hitler. And the difference between communism and the Hitler faith was very slight.

戈: 今天你这种说法好像是有所争议的。 但在民族社会主义(纳粹)掌控政权的时候对这个说法人们并没有任何争议。 那时候所有的人们都知道希特勒在搞社会主义大政府。 1925年十一月二十八日,“纽约时报”曾有一篇小文章专门叙述纳粹党人在党内如何争吵决定其政治认同的: 当一个纳粹党演说人指出列宁是继希特勒后最伟大的人物的时侯,一场骚动随既而至。 共产主义与希特勒的信念其实是有同无异的。

It wasn't just some nobody in the Nazi party who believed this. It was this man: Hitler's closest ally to the very end and his hand-pick successor as chancellor, Joseph Goebbels.

在希特勒的纳粹(民族社会党)党魁中并不是没有人认同这种说法: 希特勒的最亲密的同党同谋、希特勒亲自指定的继承人戈培尔就很清楚并认同这种说法。

Because it was so controversial, Goebbels, a master of propaganda, stopped talking about it in public. But his private writings revealed his change in approach wasn't a change of heart.

因为纳粹党内的对此争议,戈培尔 – 负责宣传洗脑的党魁,就决定对此争议在公共场合只字不提。 但他的私人笔记揭示了他的不提并不是他不同意这种说法。

EDVINS SNORE, DIRECTOR, "THE SOVIET STORY": The Nazi Germany attacked the Soviet Union in 1941. Just a week before that, he wrote in his diary that the goal of the Nazi Germany would be to destroy this Jewish Bolshevism and the Soviet Union as they described it and instead of that, build the true socialism. That's what he wrote in his diary. And, of course, Goebbels was a liar, but — well, he lied to his own diary.

埃德温斯. 斯诺尔 (“苏联的故事”导演): 纳粹德国在1941年向苏联开战。 就在开战前的一星期戈培尔在他的日记中写道: 纳粹(民族社会主义)德国的真正目的是要消灭犹太社会主义的苏联,并在此之后建立真正的社会主义。 这就是他在他的日记中真实的记录。 当然,戈培尔是个谎言家。 但是他在他自己的日记中对自己撒谎了吗?

GOLDBERG: The red shirts and the brown shirts in Germany had all sorts of members who were members of one group joining the other group and vice versa. They saw themselves as equally revolutionary organizations fighting each other for control. The Nazi versus Bolsheviks in Germany was really a case of Coke versus Pepsi.

张纳. 歌德伯格: 红衫共产与棕衫纳粹在当时的德国几乎看不出有什么不同,其中的人们经常来回穿梭在红与棕之间。 他们都把自己的党看成是革命政党为了权力而相互争斗。 纳粹与共产在当时德国的争斗就犹如今天美国可口可乐与百事可乐之间的争斗。

BECK: Even as the Nazis were taken control of France, the French communist newspaper found reason to celebrate. "In these sad times, it is exceptionally comforting to see many Parisian workers talk to German soldiers as friend, in the street, or at the corner cafe. Well done, comrades. And keep it up, even if it displeases some of the middle classes as stupid as they are mischievous."

戈: 即使在当时纳粹德国占领了法国之后,法国共产党机关报撰文庆祝纳粹的胜利: “在这些常使人悲哀的年月中,看到巴黎的工人们在街头与咖啡店中与德国士兵们像久别的友人们一样欣然交谈是多么让人振奋的情景啊! 同志们,真棒! 加油! 这真让那些愚笨而狡诈的(巴黎)中产阶级望而生畏。”

GOLDBERG: The communists in the Reichstag voted almost uniformly with the Nazis. They voted in lock step. And the slogan for the communists in the Reichstag was: First, brown, then, red. The general understanding among the communists, among socialists back then was that Nazism was a steppingstone towards the ultimate victory of socialism and communism.

张纳. 歌德伯格: 德国共产党人们在柏林的议院中几乎在所有议案中与纳粹党投一致立场的票。 他们似乎就像孪胞兄弟一样。 德国共产党人的口号是: 虽然现在是棕,不久后就会是红。 共产主义者与社会主义者们当时一致的观点是“民族社会主义(纳粹)”是通向全球社会主义与共产主义的铺路石。

BECK: While Hitler certainly to opposed communism outwardly, he did so mainly because he disagreed with its internationalism.

戈: 虽然希特勒外表上是反对共产主义的,但实际上他与共产主义的分歧只是“共产主义的国际化”。

GOLDBERG: He was a proud German, a German nationalist, a German jingoist, not a patriot but a nationalist. And he rejected that element of Marxism, but he embraced socialism entirely. He embraced the idea of racial solidarity, socialism for one race.

张纳. 歌德伯格: 他(希特勒)是个骄傲的德国人,是个德国民族主义者,是个德国沙文主义者。 他不是个传统的爱国者而是一个民族主义者。 他虽然不接受马克思主义中的国际主义成分,但他全盘拥护其社会主义的主张。 他拥护种族的纯净与为一个种族的社会主义。

BECK: Even in "Mein Kampf" he acknowledged the movements were so close that if not the focus on race, his national socialist movement would really do nothing more than compete with Marxism on its own ground. But Nazi Germany had no corner on the market of racism, and anti-Semitism.

戈: 就是在希特勒的“我的奋斗”中他也承认纳粹运动如果不是因为种族的原因,其社会主义的性质其实与马克思的理念同出一辙。 但是纳粹主义是不会在种族纯净上与反犹立场上与任何人妥协。

SNORE: We can find many Nazi-like passages in the writing of Marx and Engels were they both scorned (ph) on the Czechs and Hungarians and Poles. Marx didn't like Spanish, for example. He said that Spanish are degenerate and that Mexican are degenerated Spanish.

埃德温斯. 斯诺尔: 我们可以在马克思与恩格斯的写作中找到许多与纳粹言论无异的章节: 他们俩用了许多咒骂捷克人、匈牙利人与波兰人的脏话。 比如,马克思讨厌西班牙人: 他曾说过“西班牙人下贱,墨西哥人比西班牙人还下贱”。

GOLDBERG: Marx, you need to remember, was Jewish. He was a self- hating Jew. He rejected Judaism and all of the rest, but he was Jewish.
And Hitler hated — you know, hated Jews. I mean, this is not a news flash. Hitler was a passionate anti-Semite. And he saw Marxism as corrupted with a deep-seated Jewish nature.

张纳. 歌德伯格: 你们应知道马克思是个犹太人。 但马克思很蔑视犹太人,也蔑视犹太教。 但他确实是个犹太人。 你们也都知道希特勒最恨犹太人。 这不是什么新闻。 希特勒对犹太人恨入骨髓。 他对马克思主义的憎恨主要来自他对犹太人的憎恨。

The irony here is that so did Marx. Marx was a real anti-Semite. He wrote about the Jewish problem a generation before the Nazis started talking about the Jewish problem. He said how we had to purge the Jewish spirit from western civilization or from the global civilization. He had horrible racist things to say about Jews and the blacks.

有讽刺意味的是马克思也是个恨犹太人的人。 早在纳粹上台以前马克思就撰文咒骂犹太人。 他声称我们必须在西方文明中以致全球的人类文明中彻底铲除犹太教的影响。 他不光咒骂犹太人,也咒骂黑人。

And Hitler very much inherited that Marxist analyst when it came to things like Jews and other races.

希特勒的确从马克思的理论与文章中汲取了许多关于反犹与反其他种族的概念与言论。

BECK: Sometimes, it's hard to tell Hitler and Marx apart. Who wrote that Germany's neighbors should accept "the physical and intellectual power of the German nation to subdue, absorb and assimilate its ancient eastern neighbors"? That's Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels, author of "The Communist Manifesto" almost a century before the Holocaust.

戈: 时常地你真的分不清希特勒到底与马克思有什么不一样。 你猜猜: 谁写过这样的言辞 – “德国的邻国们要接受德国民族的生理与头脑的优越,以征服、溶解与同化那些古老的东欧国度”。 这是写“共产党宣言”的马克思与恩格斯说的。 这是他们早在希特勒的“大虐杀”之前几十年的时候就曾指出的。

Hitler's underlying admiration for Marxism was obvious.

希特勒对马克思的思想的敬慕是显而易见的。

SNORE: When I made the film, I was expecting actually that there would be similarities between the Nazis and Soviet communism, but I was actually amazed to discover how similar where these posters, and the posters were so similar that as if for one artist had drawn them. Of course, I think it is because — it is because they were both, the ideologies were very similar and their expression, therefore, was very similar as well.

埃德温斯. 斯诺尔: 当我导言“苏联的故事”的时候,我曾想过纳粹与共产之间会有许多相像之处。 但我没有想到他们简直就是一个娘胎里出来的双胞胎: 就从它们的宣传招贴画儿看吧 – 简直是一个画家画出来的。 当然,我想是因为它们的理念是非常接近的,所以它们的表达也必然是非常接近的。

GOLDBERG: In "Mein Kampf," Hitler writes about the Nazi party flag, which is this big red flag with a white disk in the middle and the swastika in the center. Hitler explains it quite clearly in "Mein Kampf" that the red, the big sea of red that the swastika was in was intended to attract socialists to his movement. The red flag was the emblem of the communists, the reason why we call them the reds.

张纳. 歌德伯格: 在“我的奋斗“中希特勒曾解释过纳粹党的红旗,就是那个红面中间有个白圈儿,里面有个黑色的“转轮符”的旗子。 希特勒说那大红色的旗子旨在把所有社会主义者们吸引过来。 红色是共产党人的颜色,也就是为什么我们称他们是“红党”。

BECK: But it went deeper than similar ideology and imagery. Until Germany launched a surprise attack on the Soviet Union in 1941, the Nazis and the Soviets worked together. They even put it in writing, signing what was originally sold as a non-aggression pact. But just weeks later, they would invade Poland from opposite sides.

戈: 共产与纳粹之间的联系其实比理念与标像符号还要更深: 在1941年纳粹德国突袭苏联之前,纳粹和共产是紧密合作的同伴。 它们之间曾签订过“互不侵犯条约”。 签约不久后它们便分头出兵侵占瓜分了波兰。

It wasn't until much late they're we would learn the full scope of the agreement.

在波兰被侵占瓜分了很久以后我们才得知了那个“互不侵犯条约”里面的全部实际的内容。

SNORE: They signed an agreement in 1939 that was called the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact, which had the secret protocol attached to it. And according to that secret protocol, they agreed on the division of the neighboring countries between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.

埃德温斯. 斯诺尔: 1939年纳粹与共产间的条约被叫做“瑞本特罗普 – 莫洛托夫条约”。 条约中有一项秘密条款。 在这项秘密条款中,纳粹与共产极权们协议瓜分在德国与苏联之间的所有邻国。

TARAS HUNCZAK, PROFESSOR EMERITUS, RUTGERS UNIVERSITY: Then there was a secret protocol which essentially divided Europe into two spheres of influence between Hitler and Stalin. After all, it was not so difficult for them. Both of them were totalitarian regimes. They understood each other. The Soviets were delivering all kinds of raw materials to the Germans. It was not just theoretical friendship.

特拉斯. 洪可扎克 (罗德格斯大学教授): 那个“秘密条款”基本上将欧洲划分为两个势力范围 – 纳粹希特勒与共产斯大林。 它们之间的合作是非常和谐融洽的。 两个都是极权暴政。 它们有共同的语言很容易就懂得彼此。 苏联在当时同意向纳粹德国提供工业原料。 它们之间有利益关系,并不只是理论上的伙伴。

SNORE: An aspect of their collaboration was mutual exchange of prisoners. Basically German communists and Jews, they fled to the Soviet Union in order to be safe. The Soviet Union sent them back to Gestapo.
And many of them, of course, were killed there and perished in the Nazi concentration camps.

埃德温斯. 斯诺尔: 它们之间利益往来的另一点是遣返逃犯: 德国的共产党人与犹太人如果逃往苏联,斯大林就会把他们遣返回德国交给盖世太保。 许多这样的逃亡者就这样在纳粹的集中营里夭亡了。

BECK: But is this just a story of brutal iron-fisted dictators, or something inherent in the philosophy? The fathers of communism, Marx, and Engels, believed that societies would evolve from capitalism to socialism. But they acknowledged that there were still what they called primitive societies that hadn't even evolved into capitalists yet. They called them racial trash.

戈: 难道这个悲剧只是因为有极权的暴君吗? 或者这一定是这种专制哲学的必然产物? 共产创始人马克思和恩格斯相信人类社会是从资本主义过渡到社会主义。 但他们也承认有他们所谓的“原始社会”- 还没有进入资本主义的社会。 马克思和恩格斯把这些社会称为“渣滓种族”的社会。

As the revolution happens, the classes and the races, too weak to master the new conditions of life, must give way. There was only one thing left for those too far behind in the process of societal evolution. "The chief mission of all other races and peoples, large and small, is to perish in the revolutionary holocaust."

当革命向前推进的时候,有的阶级与种族因为太弱而不能适应新的生活状态而必然消亡。 对那些太落后在社会演进过程中的人们,“对所有地球上的这类种族与人们,不论他们有多少,都将在‘共产革命大虐杀’中被灭绝 ”。

Up until the horrors of Hitler, prominent socialist supporters discuss these ideas out in the open. Nobel Prize winner, Fabian socialist and prominent Soviet supporter, George Bernard Shaw.

在希特勒的恐怖大虐杀之前,著名的社会主义者们早就在公开传播散布“大虐杀”的论调: 我们来看看诺贝尔奖金得主,法比安的社会主义者和苏联的热情拥护者 – 乔治. 萧伯纳。

GEORGE BERNARD SHAW, NOBEL PRIZE WINNER: I don't want to punish anybody. (INAUDIBLE) an extraordinary number of people whom I want to kill. I think it would be a good thing to make everybody come before a properly-appointed board, just as they might come before the income tax commissioner, and say every five years, or every seven years, just put them there, and say, "Sir, or madam, now will you be kind enough to justify your existence?"

乔治. 萧伯纳 (诺贝尔奖金得主): 我不想惩罚 什么人。 (低声自语:)有有很多人我真想把他们杀光。 我认为应该做这样一件好事: 让所有的人们到一个政府制定的专门机构,就像他们必须到税务局报税一样,就说每五年或七年一次吧,然后就直接问他们: “先生,或女士,请你能不能就简单告诉我为什么你要存活着?”

If you're not producing as much as you consume or perhaps a little more, then, clearly, we cannot use the big organizations of our society for the purpose of keeping you alive, because your life does not benefit us and it can't be of very much use to yourself.

“如果你不能生产出被你消耗更多的物质价值,那么很清楚的,我们就没有理由用社会的机构与物质财富来养活你,因为你的生命不能造益社会,也不能对你自己有何用处。”

BECK: And this was actually somewhat subtle for Shaw. He'd also foreshadow some of the worst atrocities in our planet's history. He wrote, "I appeal to the chemists to discover a humane gas that will kill instantly and painlessly. In short, a gentlemanly gas — deadly by all means, but humane not cruel."

戈: 萧伯纳说这些话的时候还是挺温和隐晦的。 他之后用更露骨的话预示了人类最惨痛的大劫难、大暴行。 他写道: “我呼吁化学家们研制出一种人道的、能将人无痛瞬间致死的毒气。 简而言之,就是一种绅士般的毒气 – 致命的但是人道德而不残忍的。

GOLDBERG: People like George Bernard Shaw were convinced that overpopulation was this terrible, terrible problem; particularly, because the unfit, the genetically less desirable, were swamping the good genetic types. In the late 19th century, there are almost a cream of British intelligentsia embracing eugenics. Well into the 20th century. Saying that thousands, millions had to be marched off into gas chambers and liquidated.

张纳. 歌德伯格: 像萧伯纳一样的人们确定人口膨胀是一个地球的大问题, 所以就要系统地消除那些生理基因上低下的人。 那些人如不被消除就会污染生理基因上优秀的人。 19世纪末叶,在英国学术界里持这种“优生学“观点的人大有人在。 就这样到了20世纪中叶,千百万的人们就被这种“优生学”理论投入了毒气室无辜丧命了。

George Bernard Shaw has this great line where he says, you know, we should do it while playing lovely classical music as we march them into the gas chambers. The idea — and a lot of people seem to think that this concept of the gas chamber as a tool of social policy was invented by the Nazis. It wasn't. It was — and I mean this in the most disgusting evil way, it was perfected by the Nazis.

萧伯纳常说的一句话就是: 你知道吗,我们在把他们送到毒气室的时候一定要伴上美妙的古典音乐。 许多不识真相的人们误以为实施所谓社会工程的毒气室是纳粹的首发主意。 其实根本不是。 让人恶心的是,纳粹只是借用了与完善了这个社会主义的念头。

But this idea of using things like gas chambers to kill off millions of people so that the rest of the good guys could prosper and move to the sunny uplands of history was immensely popular.

当时这个用毒气室作工具来消除千百万无辜的人,以使其他有优越基因的人们能过上繁荣昌盛的日子的社会主义理念是非常盛行的。

(END VIDEOTAPE) 视频 (1) 终 (待续)

http://lucianne.com/article/?pageid=glenn_beck_show

http://american-conservativevalues.com/blog/2010/01/glenn-beck-the-revolutionary-holocaust-live-free-or-die-01-22-2010

Wednesday, January 27, 2010

用宏大的虚无逃避真实与自由 Using Nihilism to Oppose Existence

用宏大的虚无逃避真实与自由 Using Nihilism to Oppose Existence & Escape Reality

- 不要相信那些“为国为民为族为祖捐躯”而漠视自身幸福与自身灵魂健康的人 –

陈凯 Kai Chen 1/28/2010 www.kaichenblog.blogspot.com

自古以来,中国的崇尚宏大(博大精深)虚无的人们就精心地炮制着逃避真实价值(真实、正义、自由、尊严)与真实的自知与自省的伪语言词汇: “天下兴亡,匹夫有责”、“修身齐家治国平天下”、“社稷”、“君臣父子”“民族”、“国家”、“大家”、“世界人民”、“中华”、“共和”、“和谐”、“繁荣昌盛”、“荣耻脸皮”、、、。 举不胜举的宏大博大的虚无词汇充斥毒害着人的灵魂与头脑。 谁越宏大、谁越虚无、谁越博大精深、谁越八股玄妙、谁越不可一世、、、,谁就越被中国的宦奴娼们永世赞颂。 谁越“自阉忠君”地去“精忠报国”,谁就越“平凡伟大”而“永垂不朽”。 谁越“伟光正”地去“杀人谋统一”,谁就越会被“代代相传”而“万寿无疆”、、、。

表达真实价值、概念的词汇无一不是从西方语言翻译来的。 然而这些真实的概念一经中文也大都变成了泛义、反义与无义的表象游戏了。 关于中文的弊病我已在“从文字笼罐到文字狱”一文中阐述过了。 在此就不多叙。

你能相信一个连自己是谁、连自己都不知道自己在说什么、连自己的家人与自身幸福都不管不顾不关心的人能真的为“国”、为“民”、为“大家”、为真理、为正义、为自由、为尊严吗? “大河有水小河满,大河无水小河干”的反逻辑专制谬论不是至今始终主宰着亿万灭灵贬智的中文词汇系统中的人吗?

“大禹治水,三过家门而不入”的古话是几乎所有中国的人们熟悉并引为是中国“民族道德精神”的典范的。 殊不知这样的虚无宏大的伪道德行为在自由世界(西方)正常心态的人们中是要被讥讽与笑掉大牙的: “也许大禹在外面有二奶了。” 我的一位朋友曾用玩笑评论道。 我不禁想起了华盛顿将军在独立战争一结束时所要做的第一件事: 回家探望家人、装修房屋、静度庄园的私人生活。 美国的人们是绝不会信任一个不顾自己家人、无视自身幸福的“为社稷、民族、国家、天下”的“无私”之人的。 在美国的总统竞选中,人们会特别关注竞选人的心态、家庭的健康与个体的品质与真实历史。 务实而贬虚、重价值而藐权力、褒真实而辍虚假是每一个自由社会必须建立的思维、行为与心理精神的特质。 一个赤足简衣的木匠 -- 基督的精神为这样一个自由社会奠基了健康的灵魂基础:“只有真实才能使你自由。Only truth shall set you free.”

对比一下中国的人们与其专制文化的心态: 所有的人都在用“为他人、为民族、为社稷、为国家”的宏大的虚无为自身的卑鄙行为、自身的胆怯与渺小、自身的被动不负责与受难找借口寻遁词。 “诉苦抱怨”成了中国人们习惯与迷恋的求同情、求怜悯、无奈绝望的求助手段与确定的个体行为方式。 近代的共产专制又将中国古代专制的宏大虚无的词汇量翻了几番:“人民”、“世界大同”、“共产主义”、“阶级斗争”、“唯物唯心”、“法治人治”、、。 数不胜数的博大精深的宏大虚无伪词汇加剧了中国古典专制中本来就充斥的“满嘴仁义道德,一肚子男盗女娼”的丑恶现象。 今天中国语系中的人们很少有具有清晰逻辑思维与清晰道德准则的人。 引经据典、数典念咒的祖宗奴与文化奴充斥着中文文化的地平线。 我所接触的许多海外“反共人士们”也脱不掉这样的病态思维行为方式。 他们一面高叫着反共,一面逃避着自由。 自知、自省、自我完美、自身幸福、爱情家庭、子女教育、个人财经、、是这些自命高尚的中国(后共)未来新专制的主子们所要全力回避逃脱的。

一个生活的逃避者与旁观者不可能是一个真实的自由人。 一个不关心自己心态健康、自己家庭成员幸福、自己生活的满足感的人是 所有的人们都要警觉小心的危险的野心人物。 毛泽东摈弃家人用宏大虚无的伪价值去满足自身的专制野心造成了七千万无辜生命的灭绝。 中国的人们竟将此作为“伟大”为一个世界上最大的罪恶屠夫建庙立堂。 (注:毛曾经亲自主持传播了许多宏大虚无的专制词汇如“万岁”等等。) 今天中共党朝的专制者们正在沿袭所有中外专制者们的宏大虚无的巫术传统,将“崇族崇国崇民崇大崇统崇祖”而灭个体灭自由的病态毒素用像“孔子学院”式的中华“艾滋病原体”传播到世界上去毒害每一个人的灵智。 可悲的是: 那些本来就缺少个体认同而只有群体认同的人们由于自身的恐惧感(惧怕在宇宙中找不到自身的定位)在他们反共的思维与行为中自觉与不自觉地沿袭了充满毒素的病态心理: 人身攻击、拉帮结伙、消灭异己、分类戴帽、用虚击实、造谣中伤、背后议论、取悦于人、重数而灭理、重名而灭灵、重利而灭尊、重群而灭个、重他而灭己、、就成为普遍的必然。

建立“个体”,“自我”,“自知”,“真实信仰”是中国的人们追求人生的真实价值的先决必须。 我希望每一个“反中共党朝”的人士经常地自我反省询问:“我是不是正在用宏大的虚无逃避自由的责任与真实的价值呢?” 确实的,不断地自诲自问“我是谁? 我在说什么? 我在做什么? 我想要什么? 我的生命有何意义? 我是否自由与幸福?”是个体推动世界向前演进的必经之路。

上当一次是骗子的罪过。 再次上当则说明被骗者的病态愚蠢: 中国人世世代代地在“找救星”与“被救星杀、抢、骗”中,被专制的鞭子“陀螺”似地抽转了两千年。 难道中国的人们还不该反省自身的病态和愚蠢吗? 难道中国的人们还要在高速旋转的“僵死不前”、“朝代循环”的幻觉中与“无神政府”的“大公无私”的偶像救星的搜寻中逃避自由与真实的价值、逃避自身的存在与个体道德责任吗? 方向性的选择与选择的代价与责任是中国未来(共后)唯一的走向希望的自由之路。 我愿以我奔向自由的选择与心历路程与你共勉共行。

陈凯博客: www.kaichenblog.blogspot.com

Tuesday, January 26, 2010

从胆怯、懒惰与混乱的“奴”到清晰、自由与无畏的“人” From Slaves to Free Beings

从胆怯、懒惰与混乱的“奴”到清晰、自由与无畏的“人” From Slaves to Free Beings

- 从文化奴、命运奴、环境奴、种族奴、祖宗奴等的“奴性文化心态”到自由人“道德方向”的进步性文化心态 -

陈凯 Kai Chen 1/26/2010 www.kaichenblog.blogspot.com

“甘愿做奴隶的人都是梦想当主子的人”。 我这个很早以前就做过的断言被一次又一次的证实: 不光我在中国大陆的时候人们与现实就向我证实了这个断言,今天在海外的所谓“反共人士们”在他们人与人的关系中更常常证实我这个断言。 “强权与地位”的反智反灵的疯狂追求是他们“奴、主”心态的外在必然体现。

我不能想象像美国的建国者之一的阿达姆斯(John Adams),当他在美国独立时期因正义感为英军士兵挺身辩护的壮举在中国的人们中,特别是所谓海外的“反共人士们”中会有什么样的反应。 但当时反英的美洲大陆“移民议会”正因为阿达姆斯的“反暴民”维护正义的勇敢举动将他特意请进议会并成为美国建国后的第二任总统。 是什么样的心态文化才会崇尚真实、正义、自由与人的尊严? 说真话拥正义的人与讲假话虚话取悦多数人的人 - 在中文语言的文化环境中谁会得到尊崇?

基督是因讲真话求正义而被多数人与权力迫害的人。 但为什么在西方人们没有将他作为被动的“受害者”、“精神病患者”或“不识时务的傻瓜”去讥笑嘲辱、或可怜同情他,而将他作为圣人与典范去尊崇呢? 相对之下,林昭 – 一个道德伟大、坚守正义的女性在中国被毛共专制虐杀了。 今天大部分中国的人们对她的评价是:“一个时代的受害者”、“一个有胆子而不识时务的好人”、“一个可怜、可悲、可敬的牺牲品”或“一个精神不正常的傻瓜”。 没有人会尊崇与效仿林昭的精神与行为;更没有人会让他的子女们学习效仿林昭的精神与行为并将她作为圣者去永世尊崇并作为自省的圣训。 “跪着生”的奴隶们与“站着死”的烈士们充斥着中国这片崇尚“虚无的精明”与“强权的暴虐”的大地。 “站着生”的真实的自由人便在中国的大地上成为永远的虚无。 奴/主心态就成为必然弥漫华语世界。

看看今天中国的人们崇尚什么样的人,你就会懂得今天中国的人们是什么样的人。 被多数人迫害的正义之人绝不是中国的人们向往成为或尊崇的人。 中国的人们尊崇的是杀人的人,是言行不一的“人鬼小人”与玩弄文字游戏的骗子巫师。 谁杀的人越多谁就越伟大不朽;谁骗的人越多谁就越博大精深。 秦始皇、毛泽东(主子们)是中国的人们吹捧尊崇的至高无上的典范:兵马俑与红卫兵(奴隶们)成了“扶红花”的绿叶、成了中国的人们胆怯接受的必须的生存方式程序。 张飞庙、关羽庙充斥着一个拜杀人偶像的病态世界。 雷锋一样的“宦奴娼”们是崇尚“为人民服务”的无灵“活死人”顶礼膜拜的“伪道德榜样”。 杀少正卯以立“文字狱”的、唱赞“只有强奸才能生育”的、极权专制的建论者、腐儒皇家官吏-- 孔丘 成了中国的人们永世跪拜的祖师爷和圣人。 容忍专制邪恶的“好死不如赖活着的”大多数的人们消灭了“不自由毋宁死”的少数的有良知灵魂的人。 孔儒专制与毛共强权融为一体,自然而然地成了今日中国(文化)的定义。 有趣的是今天由于孔儒专制与毛共强权“被流亡”在海外的“反共人士们”尊崇的与追求的竟是同样的专制伪价值(统一、强大、繁荣、和谐、强汉盛唐、忠孝节义、、、)。 “夺权救国”而不是“建灵复智”是中国主、奴们的共同追求。

再看看今天中文环境中有多少种的“奴”吧:

“文化奴”们认为中国的专制奴文化是不可以被批评分析的:将腐儒的专制性质剖析暴露是大逆不道的亵渎。 “命运奴”们认为“鬼秘”的命运是人的主宰: 个体是没有自由意志的-- 那些与命运博争的人只是些不识时务的傻瓜。 “环境奴”们认为人是环境的产物: 你的出生地、你的家庭、你的社会等级决定你是谁、是什么。 “种族奴”们认为你的肤色,族群、性别与长相决定你的一切。 “祖宗奴”们则认为你既有祖坟在中国你就要服从专制祖先留下来的一切程序规矩。 更不要说今天的“党奴、国奴、权力奴、金钱奴、地位奴”了、、、。

知道一个人不想要什么容易。 知道一个人想要什么难。 “被烫缩回手”的反射性动物行为容易。 “思维追求”式主动自知行为难。 “牢笼被喂,吆喝上套”的奴性被动的懒虫行为容易。 “自然中寻食寻乐寻意义”的自由人付代价担风险的主动追寻难。 不想要奴役专制容易。 建立自由民主社会难。

得到自由的前提是坚信自由的存在并付出应有的代价去得到她。 “神”(上帝、良知、美德)的存在就自然逻辑地成为先决。 如果人的生命、自由与追求幸福的权利是来自政府与他人的,那这些权利在瞬息间就会被伪赋予者夺走。 腐儒孔学的“君臣父子”的“皇权论”就此便成为中国历代专制王朝的专制基点。 “父母官”与“子民”、“救星”与“苦海无边”、“政府养人”与“无奈百姓”变成了今天在大陆无数“上访人”的心态情结。 既然政府大家养了你,自然地政府大家也就可以抢你杀你。 自古以来,政府大家为权杀人是所有中国人接受的、不受任何道德谴责的自然行为。 “反贪官、反皇帝”而“不反专制、不反皇权”成了中国人的病态行为模式。 “反拆迁”而不求“私有地产权”成了中国的人们怪诞的思维程序。 甚至在海外“被流亡”的反共人士们也迷恋在“用反西方的左派学说为中国式‘完美专制的追求’”找借口去唱赞专制,用“国情论”延续宣扬“和谐、繁荣与强大”去建立又一个伪国度。 自古就从不“信神”而永远“崇鬼”的“龙的传人们”自然地就成为“拒自由而亲专制”的“多年的媳妇熬成婆”的“主/奴心态”的真虚无/伪存在。

“做自由人”是一个人一秒钟就能决定的方向性抉择。 然而走“自由的路”则是一个人勇敢地付出代价去毕生追求的渐进过程。 生在“奴役槽船”上与“专制牢笼”中不是一个人可以选择的。 跳进自然的大海中去勇敢地畅游探索、奔驰在旷野与丛林中去寻找真知与幸福则是一个人可以选择的。 道德的清晰与正义感是一个人自由的先决。 理智的健全与逻辑感是一个人得以自由的工具。 真实的欢乐与幸福是一个人自由的最终目的。 在一个人全部的良性品质中,勇气是最重要的。 没有勇气的人是不能面对自身怯懦、懒惰与灵智混乱的人。 没有勇气的人是支离破碎的、被动无奈的、默默绝望着的人。 懦夫胆小鬼是不值得、也永远与自由幸福绝缘的“宦奴娼”。 你究竟是想做“中国人”还是想做“自由人”。 选择属于你。

长期的“被阉割”的、在被动的“奴船上”的苟且度生的人们要想自由必须经过极为痛苦磨难的“建立追求自由的意志”与“回复自由的肌肉与神经”的艰巨过程。 一个经过“专制牢笼”的肌肉萎缩、神经麻痹、精神颓丧的被动奴去“下海游泳”、去“健步登山”、去主动追求真实价值似乎看起来是个不可能的遐想幻梦。 但我从中国到美国, 从奴役走向自由的心理路程向我自己证实了自由的可能与可贵。 人们可以在我的书“一比十亿 One in a Billion” http://www.amazon.com/One-Billion-Journey-Toward-Freedom/dp/1425985025 与视频纪录片“我的路 My Way” http://kaichenblog.blogspot.com/2009/01/my-way-four-episodes-of-tv-special.html 中得到启发汲取力量。

我坚信: 存在必然战胜虚无;自由必然击毁奴役;人将最终取代“民”与“奴”在中国,在世界上挺立而行。“ 如果我可以自由,可以有尊严,可以得到幸福,你也可以。”--- 【我的路】(新唐人 – 『人杰地灵』 http://www.ntdtv.com/xtr/gb/prog81.html , http://www.ntdtv.com/xtr/gb/2008/08/08/a181396.html#video

Monday, January 25, 2010

"Revolutionary Holocaust" TV Documentary "共产大虐杀" 电视纪录片




陈凯一语: Kai Chen's Words:

“Revolutionary Holocaust 共产大虐杀”是既“Killer Chic 崇魔的时尚”以来再一次揭露共产杀人魔的电视记录片。 从马克思与纳粹法西斯的哲学体系,到斯大林,希特勒,格瓦拉与毛泽东的反人类罪行,Glenn Beck用这部纪录片深刻地揭露了共产罪恶的内在本质与当今以奥巴马为代表的美国(西方)社会主义复辟必然的联系。 我希望所有热爱自由的人们在看过这部纪录片后深刻地反思反省并做出举动有力地反击专制在全世界的回潮。 --- 陈凯

“Revolutionary Holocaust" is a great documentary program from Fox News, after "Killer Chic" by Reason TV, to once again expose the evil and atrocities of communism. From the connection of Marxism with Nazism, to the atrocities of Stalin, Hitler, Guevara and Mao, Glenn Beck effectively peels off the mystery and masks from the evil ideology apparently adopted by the Obama administration of today's America. I hope that everyone, having viewed this program, starts to take action in a massive/relentless counter-attack against modern despotism/tyranny. Let's take back our own country - our beloved America. --- Kai Chen


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

Revolutionary Holocaust 共产大虐杀

http://lucianne.com/article/?pageid=glenn_beck_show

Produced by Glenn Beck Fox News

视频连锁 Video Link:

http://lucianne.com/article/?pageid=glenn_beck_show

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

http://lucianne.com/article/?pageid=glenn_beck_show

A bleak anniversary : Mao the mass murderer

By Jonathan Mirsky
Published: January 9, 2004

BuzzPermalinkLONDON— While China celebrates the 110th anniversary of Mao Zedong's birth, six well-known Chinese intellectuals have called for his body to be removed from the mausoleum that dominates Tiananmen Square.

For Yu Jie and Liu Xiaobo, who live in Beijing — the other four live in American exile — this must be one of the bravest statements since the Communist Party seized power in 1949. In the most recent issue of the Hong Kong magazine Kaifang, or Open, they urge that sending Mao's body back to his home village in Hunan province "would elevate the status of Beijing into that of a civilized capital, and make it fit to stage a 'civilized Olympics' in 2008. We certainly do not want to see the farce of the Olympic flag flying over a city in which a corpse is worshipped."

But China's leadership has yet to come to terms with what Mao did to the country. In 1981, in a judgment overseen by Deng Xiaoping, the Communist Party admitted that Mao bore the chief responsibility for China's greatest modern catastrophe, the Cultural Revolution of 1966-1976, but emphasized that his "mistakes" were those of "a great revolutionary" whose contributions were far greater than his errors.

This explains why a huge portrait of Mao continues to hang over the Tiananmen walls and why, in late December, an avalanche of praise for Mao filled the Chinese media. The China Daily, an official English-language newspaper, asserted that Mao's military, philosophical and literary teachings still influence China, while according to the party's People's Daily, "His outstanding achievements, glorious ideas and great charisma influence generation after generation, far beyond his own day."

It is impossible to imagine official homage in Germany for Hitler or in Russia for Stalin. And yet Mao was a destroyer of the same class as Hitler and Stalin. He exhibited his taste for killing from the early 1930's, when, historians now estimate, he had thousands of his political adversaries slaughtered. Ten years later, still before the Communist victory, more were executed at his guerrilla headquarters at Yan'an.

Hundreds of thousands of landlords were exterminated in the early 1950's. From 1959 to 1961 probably 30 million people died of hunger — the party admits 16 million — when Mao's economic fantasies were causing peasants to starve and he purged those who warned him of the scale of the disaster.

Many more perished during the Cultural Revolution, when Mao established a special unit, supervised by Prime Minister Zhou Enlai, to report to him in detail the sufferings of hundreds of imprisoned leaders who had incurred the chairman's displeasure.

One of the chairman's secretaries, Li Rui, wrote recently, "Mao was a person who did not fear death, and he did not care how many were killed." The writers of the Kaifang article tell us what this meant for China: "Mao instilled in people's minds a philosophy of cruel struggle and revolutionary superstition. Hatred took the place of love and tolerance; the barbarism of 'It is right to rebel!' became the substitute for rationality and love of peace. It elevated and sanctified the view that relations between human beings are best characterized as those between wolves."

It is common in academic circles, not only in China but in the West, to consider Mao as a thinker, guerrilla leader, poet, calligrapher and literary theorist. Mao specialists tend to divide his career into two periods: before 1957, when Mao "the visionary" fought his way with tenacity and brilliance to party leadership and set about transforming China from a fragmented, backward society into a unified nation; and after 1957, in which Mao became power-crazed and dragged China into violence and economic stagnation.

The signatories of the Kaifang broadside, however, see Mao whole: "Under Mao, the ideological obsession with 'attacking feudalism, capitalism and revisionism' severed links with traditional Chinese culture, with modern Chinese culture and with Western civilization, deliberately placing the country beyond the mainstream of human civilization."

This seems reasonable. Yet few of Mao's closest comrades, or their successors today, ever admitted publicly, even after his death, that from his earliest years of authority whatever Mao proposed, encouraged or commanded was underpinned by the threat of death. This was also the secret of Stalin's power, and of Hitler's. The Kaifang writers note that "Mao Zedong's writings poisoned the soul and the language of the Chinese race; and his violent, hate-filled, loutish language remains a problem to this day."

In 1973 Mao suggested, apropos of Hitler, that the more people a leader kills, the more people will desire to make revolution. Mao would have approved the killing of unarmed protesters in spring 1989 not only in Tiananmen but in dozens of cities throughout China, and would have hailed the party's "hate-filled" insistence to this day that the 1989 demonstrators were criminals who deserved what they got.

At a recent American seminar on Mao a professor from Beijing who specializes in Mao studies asked me if I was suggesting that the millions of Chinese who admire and love Mao are revering a mass killer. I replied that such veneration was China's tragedy.

The writer is former East Asia editor of The Times of London.

Saturday, January 23, 2010

“来西方学反西方,用自由学灭自由” Using Freedom to Destroy Freedom

“来西方学反西方,用自由学灭自由” Using Freedom to Destroy Freedom

- 中国海外学人自古至今的反价值罪恶历史与病态心理的写照 -

陈凯 Kai Chen 1/23/2010 www.kaichenblog.blogspot.com

真实、正义、自由与尊严的普世终极价值似乎与中国的人们,尤其是与在海外西方的学人们无缘。 似乎将自己拋除在自由世界之外以拯救中国的人们尤其是中国的学人们的虚荣,拯救中国人祖宗的“脸”与“皮”是中国的人们唯一关心的命题。 西方电影中的那些没有灵魂的、吃人寄生的“吸血鬼”(vampires)、“活死人”(zombies) 的形象自然地就涌现在我的头脑中。 哀哉! 中国的人们为什么非要迷恋在强烈的“反人非人”的思维状态与情感中而拒绝成为真实的“人”?

“东方西方”、“中国外国”这些人们常用的混头蒙脑的伪词汇禁锢着人们的灵智,使人们看不到事物的本质。 从洋务运动中的“中学为体,西学为用”到“明治维新”的日本到今天“宠孔拜儒”的中国海外学人、、,这一切的实质说穿了只不过是“专制为核,自由为用”、“奴役为实,尊严为虚”、“族群为上,个体为下”罢了。 用自由世界由于真实永恒的人类价值而产生的物质与社会管理的成果为延续中国“孔儒专制”服务(救祖宗的脸、护族群的皮)是自始至终海外学人们的病态迷恋。 “救中国而无视人的尊严与自由”、“保族群而贬辍人的幸福与正义感”、“抬专制祖宗而摈弃人的良知与逻辑”是中国海外学人们的至今共有的反人类价值的通病。 “用麻绳来绑电线”的表象的“中西沟通”是历来中国专制统治者们与中国海外学人们自欺他欺的普遍现象。 “自由与专制实质的绝缘与对立”的本质是这些无灵无智的人们所竭尽全力否认、逃避与回避的。 价值的电流就此永远不能激起对自由渴望与对幸福追求的熊熊火焰。 中国仍旧被黑暗所笼罩,瞎子们也就成了这黑暗的必然孪生物。

从胡适到周恩来、从邓小平到今天台湾的马英九、、,这些海外的学人们从来都是在“镀金”与“维护祖宗的专制传统文化与制度”上徘徊不前。 自由世界的必然的个体责任感与无畏的对真实的追求吓破了他们的胆。 为了“皮脸”的虚荣与个体在族群认同中的“伪安全的确定感”,这些“宦奴娼”心态的海外学人们便在由于自由世界的自由言论与思想而产生的各种学派中精心搜寻那些适用于“祖宗专制传统与思想方法”的“反西方反自由反资本主义经济学说”如萧伯纳、马克思、民族社会主义(纳粹、法西斯)、共产极权与将人分为各种类别的各种左派理论学说。 自然地,民族社会主义的“以族而分”与共产主义的“以阶级而分”的反人理论就与这些中国的“宦奴娼”们的腐儒反人心态中的“君臣父子”“男女老幼”的三纲五常的中国专制等级论连在一起引起奴役伪哲学的巨大共鸣。 再加上马克思与黑格尔的“黑就是白、白就是黑”的“辩证法” 的方法论与中国古典的“阴阳”与“朝代循环”一触即通,自然而然地中国传统专制的“砒霜”与马克思(社会主义、共产主义)的“氰化钠”就在“难得糊涂”的中式大酱缸中搅为一体,成为一个毒素加倍的、致命的麻醉毒品。 自由世界的本质 – 人的终极道德感(基督精神)、人的个体价值(生命的神圣、自由的宝贵、对幸福的渴望与追求)、分权而立的联邦宪政与以字母文字(英文为首)为底的理性逻辑思维就被踢在一边成为中国学人们不屑一顾的所谓“西方怪癖产物”。 族群、统一、和谐、僵死的思维、不变的祖宗秩序便成为了“用西方产生的科技与管理”去“维护延续中国的朝代专制”的伪价值体系。 工厂、公司、医院、学校、枪炮原子弹、信息(Google,Yahoo)、太空等所有在自由社会中产生的物质成就与管理手段被永远也不能产生这一切的旨在维护中国专制框架的“宦奴娼”们所抄袭搬用。 新的更毁人毁灵的专制制度就此产生并得到巩固。 今天中国的专制共产法西斯不就是典型的“专制为核,自由为用”的中国人传统病态心理的写照吗?

如果这种病态心理来自中共党朝控制利用的海外侨团、学生会、御用媒体、五毛奴、、也就罢了。 但我早就发现许多自称反共的人士们也都抱有同样的对病态伪价值与方法论的崇尚迷恋。 他们精心地在自由文化的自由表达中挖掘反自由的言论与伪价值:今天几乎所有在美国与西方的研究中国文化与社会的人们都是被专制收买与被恐吓而屈服的左派社会主义人士。 80% 以上的美国学术界是由反美的崇尚“完美专制”的人士们组成的。(无独有偶的与毫不奇怪的,80%以上的在美华人在每次选举中都会投票给民主党和代表左派大政府救星的政客们。) 已被中共洗脑的、“历史与道德残疾的”、隔绝于美国社会的(从不打工而只钻学业拼文凭的)来自中国的学人们(包括某些“职业反共”人士)在美国(西方)的学院机构中被迷恋群体,阶级,种族,强权的左派学术界再一次洗脑。 “早上八九点钟的太阳”( “Morning Sun”)这样的被卡琳之流所制的颂扬红卫兵的纪录片与“鲜为人知的文化大革命”(“Unknown Cultural Revolution”) 这样的被韩东平之流所著的吹捧毛泽东的书在美国被左派的大多数人们宣扬炫耀着,就像当年斯诺的“红星照耀中国”(”Red Star over China”)的毒害欺蒙自由世界人们灵智、美化共产毒蘑/魔的书一样。 这些“环境奴”、“文化奴”对像“"超越自由与尊严"(”Beyond Liberty & Dignity”)这样的宣称“人没有自由意志”的西方左派垃圾书更倍加青睐。 今天中国的学人们与过去中国的学人们一样,继承着“来西方学反西方,用自由学灭自由”的罪恶传统与病态心理,旨在维系巩固一个专制的心态与制度,不管这个专制会用什么样动听的标签。 今天美国(西方)的左派“崇完美专制”的人们也仍旧与他们的前辈们如斯特朗与斯诺一样,从宣扬斯大林到美化毛泽东,旨在动摇世界上自由的人们的信念、腐蚀自由社会的基石。 中国崇专制反自由的人们包括海外学人们与美国(西方)左派崇专制反自由的人们遥相呼应,形成了当代社会邪恶势力的喉舌话筒、不断繁生着新的专制语言词汇。 新的强大的专制理念正在“政治正确”、“公费保健”、“世界暖化”、“政府当救星”的族群阶级为基点的口号概念中向自由发动着前所未有的攻势。 一个不可避免的价值与伪价值、自由与专制间的决战就要到来。

我希望那些来美来西方的“崇尚自由追求幸福”的人们坚守你们“自由人”的坚贞,对那些崇尚专制的中国与美国(西方)的病态行为与言论用你们个体的方式做出及时的有力的回击。 在21世纪自由退缩、专制进取的时代中,每一个自由人都要基道德责任感做出正义的抉择。 自由反击专制的时刻到了。

Friday, January 22, 2010

Internet Alone Won't Make Them Free 互联网本身并不能使任何人自由

陈凯一语: Kai Chen's Words:

www.kaichenblog.blogspot.com

No one can make anyone else free unless one wants to be free himself/herself. Modern technology can be applied to suppress freedom as well as to advance it. To be free, one must take action to free themselves from the evil communist regime as well as from evil within oneself. --- Kai Chen

没有人能使任何其他人自由。 自由是每个个体本身付出代价去争取到的。 现代科技可以用来争取自由,也可以用来压抑自由。 要自由,每一个个体都要主动行为付出代价从共产专制下独立出来,同时也要从自身的软弱、怯懦与道德混乱中挣脱出来。 --- 陈凯

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

Internet Alone Won't Make Them Free 互联网本身并不能使任何人自由


MoreEllen Bork

Special to Sphere (Jan. 22, 2010)

It's ironic that an Internet company is getting kudos for its announcement that it may leave China. After all, for many years, the presumption has been that the Internet would be an unstoppable force for good in China and American companies would be on the cutting edge of this transformation.

No one did more to apply this principle to U.S.-China policy than President Bill Clinton. Thursday, a more sober expression of the Internet's possibilities and support for a U.S. government role in the use of the Internet to advance freedom came from his wife, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Until 10 years ago, there was an annual debate in Congress about China and human rights on the occasion of the decision by the president whether to renew China's trade status – i.e., "most favored nation," or MFN. Human rights activists as well as representatives of American business canvassed the Hill. The prospect of a thumbs-down vote put pressure on the president and the State Department to get concessions from China. Under such pressure, which mounted after the Tiananmen massacre of democracy protesters in 1989, President Clinton, who came to office decrying the "butchers of Beijing," even agreed to make China's trade status conditional on human rights progress.

But when it came time to fulfill that promise in 1994, President Clinton balked, "delinking" human rights from trade. In doing so, he double-crossed not only Democratic leaders in Congress, including now-Speaker Nancy Pelosi and then-Sen. George Mitchell, but also Chinese dissidents and activists, and even reformers inside the Chinese Communist Party who could have used a tough U.S. stance to bolster their positions.

So, have trade, investment and the Internet brought freedom to China? Of course not.

In fact, thanks to a growing economy and better technology (some of it imported from America), China's tactics of control have actually become more refined and effective. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) maintains a massive Internet-policing apparatus and works hard to keep the Web from being an effective tool of organization by human rights activists or an outlet of free speech by journalists and bloggers -- people like Shi Tao, a journalist who went to jail after Yahoo identified him for Chinese authorities tracing an innocuous e-mail.

There is everything right about Chinese people escaping poverty and gaining a higher standard of living. Nor is it American business' business to bring democracy to China. But as Google's famous motto goes, business shouldn't be evil either. Yet that is basically what American businesses are doing when they sell the CCP the means to maintain increasingly sophisticated control over the people.

The battle isn't between technology and dictatorship, but between dictators and the people. Both try to make the best use of their resources, which favor, of course, the CCP.

In her speech Thursday, Secretary Clinton acknowledged that technology can be used by both sides in the struggle for democracy. The U.S., she said, will "take sides." Doing that would put the Obama administration at odds with China's communist dictatorship, and, if Secretary Clinton is serious, will also alienate some American and foreign companies that would like to sell China technologies that can be used to police the Internet and society.

This would be an important change in a longstanding, passive approach to the role of the Internet and, more broadly, "engagement" in China that hasn't worked.
_____________________
Ellen Bork is director of democracy and human rights at the Foreign Policy Initiative.

Wednesday, January 20, 2010

The Health Care Bill Is Dead 奥巴马搞社会主义死路一条

陈凯一语: Kai Chen's Words:

www.kaichenblog.blogspot.com

Scott Brown's vistory shows that Obama's despotic aspiration/attempt to lead America into the abyss of socialism will fail miserably. America belongs to free people, not to despots and slaves. --- Kai Chen

Scott Brown的竞选胜利说明美国自由文化精神的强大。 奥巴马在美国复活社会主义的阴险图谋将在自由人们的反击之下彻底崩溃。 美国是自由人的美国,不是专制者和奴才的美国。 --- 陈凯


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

The Health Care Bill Is Dead 奥巴马搞社会主义死路一条

And other repercussions of Scott Brown's victory in Massachusetts.

BY Fred Barnes
January 20, 2010 12:30 AM

The impact of Republican Scott Brown’s capture of the Massachusetts Senate seat held for decades by Teddy Kennedy will be both immediate and powerful. It’s safe to say no single Senate election in recent memory is as important as this one.

Here are a few of the repercussions:

1) President Obama is weakened. For the third time in three months, he couldn’t deliver for a Democratic candidate. Last November, he abetted the defeat of Democrat Creigh Deeds in the Virginia governor’s race and failed to prevent Democrat Jon Corzine’s ouster as New Jersey governor. Now in Massachusetts, his appearance for Martha Coakley was a bust. A president who can’t aid his party’s candidates loses influence with Congress and inside his party.

That’s not all. Obama’s agenda, chiefly health care, took a beating in Massachusetts. In fact, it was the chief cause of Coakley’s defeat. Without the intrusion of national politics, she would have defeated Brown. But Obama and Democrats in Washington have created a hostile environment for Democratic candidates even in liberal and Democrat-dominated Massachusetts. So there’s a double whammy for Obama: he can’t help if he personally shows up to campaign on behalf of Democrats and his policies are ruining their chances of being elected.

2) Independents are lost to Democrats, at least for the time being. In 2006 and 2008, they fled Republicans in large numbers and facilitated Democratic triumphs for the House, Senate, and White House. Now they’ve staged a mass migration to the Republican camp. In Massachusetts, where they make up half the electorate, they overwhelmingly voted for Brown. This followed the 2-to-1 advantage they gave to Republicans in Virginia and New Jersey last year.

Democrats may win them back, but not if they stick with the liberal policies--especially the unbridled spending and $1 trillion deficits--of Obama and congressional Democrats. These are killer issues among independents. Perhaps it will take another unpopular Republican administration in Washington to push them toward Democrats again. And that is years away.

3) In the midterm election in November, Republicans are poised to win 25 or so House seats. But it will take a net of 40 to take control the House. For this, they need more open Democratic seats, which are easier to win than incumbent-held seats. Brown’s victory in Massachusetts is a good bet to scare many more Democrats into retirement.

If a Republican can win in Massachusetts, why not in Missouri or Pennsylvania or a solidly Democratic state like New York? Last week, Democrat Vic Snyder of Arkansas announced his retirement, citing the political climate as the reason. It’s an anti-Democratic climate.

4) Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell is the new king of Capitol Hill. His skill in keeping 40 Republicans united against Democratic health care reform was masterful, and it wasn’t easy. A number of Republican senators are drawn to co-sponsoring or at least voting for Democratic bills. Not this time.

By keeping his minority together, McConnell put enormous pressure on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who had to keep every Democrat in line to gain the 60 votes need to halt a Republican filibuster. On health care, it meant he had to make unseemly deals with a host of senators, most egregiously in the Medicaid payoff to Nebraska to appease Senator Ben Nelson. Reid got the votes, but the deals were political poison.

5) Oh, yes. The health care bill, ObamaCare, is dead with not the slightest prospect of resurrection. Brown ran to be the 41st vote for filibuster and now he is just that. Democrats have talked up clever strategies to pass the bill in the Senate despite Brown, but they won’t fly. It’s one thing for ObamaCare to be rejected by the American public in poll after poll. But it becomes a matter of considerably greater political magnitude when ObamaCare causes the loss of a Senate race in the blue state of Massachusetts.

Then there’s the House, where Speaker Nancy Pelosi insists some version of ObamaCare will be approved and soon. She’s not kidding. She’s simply wrong. At best, she has the minimum 218 votes for passage. After the Massachusetts fiasco, however, there’s sure to be erosion. How many Democrats in Republican-leaning districts want to vote for ObamaCare, post-Massachusetts? Not many.

Pelosi met with House Democrats yesterday to tell them how the negotiations on a compromise health care bill between the House and Senate were going. As she spoke, one Democratic member whispered to another, “It’s like talking about your date on Friday, but the date’s in the emergency room.” ObamaCare went into the emergency room in Massachusetts and didn’t make it out alive.

Tuesday, January 19, 2010

Why America and China will clash 美国与中共党朝的必然冲突

陈凯一语: Kai Chen's Words:

www.kaichenblog.blogspot.com

The leader of the Free World and a criminal communist party-dynasty, a democracy and a dictatorship, a legitimate nation and an illegitimate regime..., there is no common ground whatsoever between the US and China. This has been always the case. Therefore, the coming clash - the Second Cold War, between US and China is inevitable. Let's brace for the clash long overdue. --- Kai Chen

一个是自由世界的主导,一个是共产罪犯党朝;一个是民主社会,一个是专制独裁伪政体;一个是合法国度,一个是非法伪国度、、、。 在美国与中共党朝之间不存在任何共同道德基点。 以前是这样,现在仍旧是这样。 第二个“冷战”(软与硬的冷战)正在美国与中共党朝之间展开。 逻辑告诉我们这是绝不可避免的。 --- 陈凯

Why America and China will clash 美国与中共党朝的必然冲突


By Gideon Rachman

Published: January 18 2010 19:54

Google’s clash with China is about much more than the fate of a single, powerful firm. The company’s decision to pull out of China, unless the government there changes its policies on censorship, is a harbinger of increasingly stormy relations between the US and China.

The reason that the Google case is so significant is because it suggests that the assumptions on which US policy to China have been based since the Tiananmen massacre of 1989 could be plain wrong. The US has accepted – even welcomed – China’s emergence as a giant economic power because American policymakers convinced themselves that economic opening would lead to political liberalisation in China.

If that assumption changes, American policy towards China could change with it. Welcoming the rise of a giant Asian economy that is also turning into a liberal democracy is one thing. Sponsoring the rise of a Leninist one-party state, that is America’s only plausible geopolitical rival, is a different proposition. Combine this political disillusionment with double-digit unemployment in the US that is widely blamed on Chinese currency manipulation, and you have the formula for an anti-China backlash.

Both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush firmly believed that free trade and, in particular, the information age would make political change in China irresistible. On a visit to China in 1998, Mr Clinton proclaimed: “In this global information age, when economic success is built on ideas, personal freedom is essential to the greatness of any nation.” A year later, Mr Bush made a similar point: “Economic freedom creates habits of liberty. And habits of liberty create expectations of democracy ... Trade freely with the Chinese and time is on our side.”

The two presidents were reflecting the conventional wisdom among America’s most influential pundits. Tom Friedman, New York Times columnist and author of best-selling books on globalisation, once proclaimed bluntly: “China’s going to have a free press. Globalisation will drive it.” Robert Wright, one of Mr Clinton’s favourite thinkers, argued that if China chose to block free access to the internet, “the price would be dismal economic failure”.

So far, the facts are refusing to conform to the theory. China has continued to censor new and old media, but this has hardly condemned it to “dismal economic failure”. On the contrary, China is now the world’s second largest economy and its largest exporter, with foreign reserves above $2,000bn. But all this economic growth shows little sign of provoking the political changes anticipated by Bush and Clinton. If anything, the Chinese government seems to be getting more repressive. Liu Xiaobo, a leading Chinese dissident, was recently sentenced to 11 years in prison for his involvement in the Charter 08 movement that advocates democratic reforms.

Google’s decision to confront the Chinese government is an early sign that the Americans are getting fed up with dealing with Chinese authoritarianism. But the biggest pressures are likely to come from politicians rather than businessmen. Google is an unusual company in an unusually politicised industry. If the Googlers do indeed head for the exits in China, they are unlikely to be crushed by a stampede of other multinationals rushing to follow them. To most big companies the country’s market is too large and tempting to ignore. Despite Google, US business is likely to remain the lobby that argues hardest for continuing engagement with China.

The pressures for disengagement will come from labour activists, security hawks and politicians – particularly in Congress. To date, the Obama administration has based its policy firmly on the assumptions that have governed America’s approach to China for a generation. The president’s recent set-piece speech on Asia was a classic statement of the case for US engagement with China – complete with the ritualistic assertion that America welcomes China’s rise. But, after being censored by Chinese television in Shanghai and harangued by a junior Chinese official at the Copenhagen climate talks, Barack Obama may be feeling less warm towards Beijing. An early sign that the White House is hardening its policy could come in the next few months, with an official decision to label China a “currency manipulator”.

Even if the administration itself does not move, the voices calling for tougher policies against China are likely to get louder in Congress. Google’s decision to highlight the dangers of cyberattack from China will play to growing American security fears about China. The development of Chinese missile systems that threaten US naval dominance in the Pacific are also causing concern in Washington. Impending US arms sales to Taiwan are already provoking a dispute.

Meanwhile, protectionism seems to be becoming intellectually respectable in the US in ways that should worry China.

A trade war between America and China is hardly to be welcomed. It could tip the world back into recession and inject dangerous new tensions into international politics. If it happens, both sides will share the blame. The US has been almost wilfully naive about the connections between free trade and democracy. The Chinese have been provocative over currency and human rights. If they want to head off a damaging clash with America, changes in policy would be well advised.

gideon.1c
More columns at www.ft.com/rachman
Post and read comments at Gideon Rachman’s blog

Monday, January 18, 2010

价值vs.伪价值-反皇权vs.反皇帝 Value vs. Anti-Value, Freedom vs. Despotism/Tyranny

价值vs.伪价值-反皇权vs.反皇帝 Value vs. Anti-Value, Freedom vs. Despotism/Tyranny

追求真实vs.复古返祖,正义vs.均贫富,个体自由vs.腐儒伦理,人的尊严
Vs.民族主义

陈凯 Kai Chen 1/18/2010 www.kaichenblog.blogspot.com

我始终对相当数量的海外反共的中国人们的行为与言论时而好奇、时而沮丧、时而恶心、时而诧异、时而不知所云。 “他们不知道自己在说什么、在做什么”是我脑中经常的结论。

价值与逻辑(灵魂与理性)常常完全地在他们的言行中缺失: 当他们意图铲除共产暴政的毒树的时候,他们会有意地保留(保护)专制的毒根,甚至精心地为这毒根施肥浇水。 当他们来到自由的国度充享自由的美好的时候,他们会激情地讴歌他们祖地专制的传统伪价值,甚至竭尽全力用传统专制伪价值在自由中去腐蚀一个自由的社会。 当他们站在自由的门槛上的时候,他们会犹疑地徘徊不前,甚至惊恐地逃离自由回到专制的牢笼框架中去。 “不自由毋宁死”的自由社会的个体责任吓破了这些长期浸泡在“好死不如赖活着”的专制毒液中的奴隶们的胆,“宦奴娼”的蠕动在他人粪便中蛆虫的生活成了这些“善走捷径而误入歧途”的精明人们所要追求的最高生存境界。 “一个更完美的专制”而不是自由尊严成了几乎所有中国的人们共同向往的“不同于西方文化的”永恒追求。 “中国”与“专制”成了白头到死的腐朽精神文化伴侣。 “中国”与“自由”成了不共戴天的死敌。

我经常在一些反共媒体上看到一些评论人士引用孔儒的专制语言如“不患寡,患不均”来抨击中共党朝的贫富不均现象。 共产早期的“打土豪,分田地”的口号自然地就涌进我的回忆。 这有什么不同吗? 一个正义的社会绝不会是一个“均贫富”的社会,基天赋的每个个体的才能与努力的不平等。 “不患寡,不患不均,只患不正义,只患无尊严”似乎永远地与中国的唯腐儒的、唯专制伪价值的人们绝缘。

骂贪官而不反制度、恨皇帝而不反皇权、反共产而崇尚专制、嫉妒他人所得而不是追求正义与真实似乎成了中国反共人士们的已达成共识的唯有伪价值。 正义社会由于资本主义市场的自由而产生的“贫富不均”被中国反共人士们的肤浅表象的伪价值认同与由于中共党朝的非法罪犯官方性质所产生的“官富人贫”、“邪富正贫”等同起来混为一谈。 正义社会由于言论自由而暴露的腐败被那些褒扬专制伪价值的中国反共人士们认为是中国未来所谓“完美社会”要避免的现象。 一个“完美的专制”似乎早已成为所有中国无灵无智的人们自始至终、不惜血汗生命所顽守的伪追求。

用“利益”与“祖先”而不是“人的终极价值”去作为一个社会追求的伪价值是一个只“重肉”而“贬智灭灵”的伪社会。 追“和谐”而灭“异见”、求“统一”而压自由、褒“繁荣昌盛”而贬“快乐幸福”、迷“均富”而灭“创造”、信“族群”而耻“个体”、崇“长寿”而辍“意义”、、。 人体洞穴的功能代替了人的头脑心灵成了中国专制文化洗脑个体而所崇尚的伪生命价值。 两千年来重复了几万亿次的“腐儒文化谎言”应验了戈培尔的对“真理”的定义成了中国人们不敢“越雷池一步”的宦奴娼的行为准则。

真实、正义、自由、尊严这些肉眼所不见的、无法被物质利益验证的、基于信仰的精神道德的指南在中国专制文化强大的污染扭曲之中成了中文语言中的虚无。 腐儒文化的典范是所谓的“强汉盛唐”。 由强奸人的自由而产生的专制王朝的丰硕成了中国宦奴娼极为自豪的炫耀,似乎物质的丰盛、权力的强大是衡量一个社会进步的唯一标准。 邓小平的“白猫黑猫”与“实践是检验真理的唯一标准”与今天海外反共人士的方法论是同出一徹。 今天中国党朝的“尊孔拜孔”与今天海外反共人士的“尊孔拜孔”搅在一起。 唯一不同的是中共党朝有枪杆子与强权去解义推广它的“尊孔拜孔”。 今天以“均贫富”的伪价值起家的共产王朝与今天为“均贫富”唱赞的“反共”人士的伪价值搅在一起。 唯一不同的是中共党朝有枪杆子与强权去推广它定义的“均贫富” 的伪价值。 今天以“民族国家大义”的伪价值蒙脑混灵夺权的中共党朝与今天崇尚“民族国家大义”的反共人士们的伪价值搅在一起。 唯一不同的是中共党朝有枪杆子与强权去决定如何定义这个本来就“伪”的伪价值。 到头来,谁有枪杆子与强权成了中国人们的唯一关怀与追求的焦点:灵魂的腐败、头脑智慧的混乱与低下就成为必然。 精明而无智无灵的各种“巫术”“巫法”变成了“中国文化”的定义。 “尿盆里游泳捕鱼”与“粪池里扒谷(八股)充饥”的“走捷径”成了中国的人们精心研究并强制其后代延承的“中国特色的专制主义”。

深刻地反省中国两千年专制文化的伪价值已成为未来中国走向人的自由与尊严的必须与先决的前提。 真实、正义、自由、尊严(真正自尊)的普世终极的人的价值将成为中国人们语言中必不可少的道德组成。 天安门城楼上伪价值(虚无专制的)的口号“中华人民共和国万岁”与“全世界人民大团结万岁”将与毛的腐尸一样,连同人们头脑与灵魂中充满毒素的伪价值如“民族”、“和谐”、“统一”、“昌盛”、“富强”、“和平”、“均富”、和“忠孝节义”、“仁义礼智信”的腐儒等级伪文化被抛到人类历史“耻辱垃圾堆”中去。 “人”将在“自我”与“自身良知(上苍‘神’)”的对话中,而不是在他人、族群的眼光与认同中建立真实的价值。 那时一个真实的、价值的、自由的、追求欢乐幸福的新世界才会在我们面前缓缓地脱颖而出。

Sunday, January 17, 2010

Stop Spinning, Start Progressing! 走出中庸朝代的陀螺式循环心态,建立以价值鉴别的进步方向性思维

走出中庸朝代的陀螺式循环心态,建立以价值鉴别的进步方向性思维

Stop Spinning, Start Progressing!

不一定与一定不(中英文)"May-not“ vs. "Will-never" (in Chinese & English)

陈凯 Kai Chen 1/17/2010 www.kaichenblog.blogspot.com

陈凯一语:

如果中国人仍旧迷恋在”环形思维“的恶圈里停滞不前,而拒绝进入”线性进步“的良性思维中去,中国人自救的可能性是绝没有的。 --- 陈凯

If the Chinese refuse to abandon their "circular stagnant thinking" and as a result the vicious cycle they have mired themselves in for the last two thousand years, and if they refuse to whole-heartedly adopt the "linear progressive thinking" the West has been engaged themselves in since Christ, China will have no hope. --- Kai Chen


***************************************

“好”(维护良知正义)一定“善”(自己不作恶);“善”不一定“好”。

Being good is more than being nice/kind. Being good means standing up for freedom and justice.

有自由的个人不一定都幸福;没有自由的个人一定不幸福。

An individual with freedom may not find his happiness; but an individual without freedom will never have a chance to find his happiness.

吸毒者不一定没有时时的快活;但吸毒者一定没有真实的幸福欢乐。

A drug addict may not be devoid of pleasure from time to time; but a drug addict will never experience true joy and happiness.

有选举的社会不一定是一个民主的社会,没有选举的社会一定没有民主。

Election may not necessarily lead to democracy; but without election there will never be democracy.

有信仰的人不一定有良知道德;没有信仰的人一定没有良知道德。

Those who believe may not have conscience and morals; those who don't believe will never have conscience and morals.

有逻辑的思维不一定都导致正确的结论;没有逻辑的思维一定不会导致正确的结论。

With logic one may not reach a correct conclusion; without logic one will never reach a correct conclusion.

有资本主义的社会不一定是自由民主社会;没有资本主义的社会一定不是自由民主社会。

With capitalism a society may not be a free society; without capitalism, a society will never be a free society.

有言论自由的社会不一定都是人人诚实的社会;没有言论自由的社会一定不会成为追求诚实的社会。

With freedom of speech and press, a society may not be an honest society; without freedom of speech and press, a society will never be an honest society.

有个人自由的社会不一定都是法律秩序的社会;没有个人自由的社会一定不可能是一个以法治政的秩序社会。

With individual freedom, a society may not have law and order; without individual freedom, a society will never become a society of "rule of law" with order.

有意愿,勇气与能力的人不一定都能成功;没有意愿,勇气与能力的人一定不会成功。

With strong will, courage and ability, one may not succeed; without strong will, courage and ability, one will never succeed.

有客观历史感的人不一定都有眼光;没有客观历史感的人一定没有眼光。

With an objective view of history, one may not have a vision for the future; without an objective view of history, one will never have a vision for the future.

诚实的人不一定都自由幸福;不诚实的人一定不会自由幸福。

Honesty may not lead to freedom and happiness; dishonesty will never lead to freedom and happiness.

一个活着的人并不一定是真实的存在;一个存在的人一定是活在真实之中。

A person merely breathing may not be a person in true existence; a person in true existence will never be a person who is merely breathing.

憎恨中共的人不一定都是好人; 支持中共的人一定不是好东西。

Those who hate the Chinese communists may not be all good people; those who support the Chinese communists will never be good people.

支持美国的人不一定都是好人; 憎恨美国的人一定没有好东西。

Those who support America may not be all good people; those who hate America will never be good people.

中共消亡后不一定有自由民主社会; 中共不消亡一定不会有自由民主社会。

There may not necessarily be a free society after the Chinese communists perish; there will never be a free society if the Chinese communists still are in charge.


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

I only list a few "may-nots" and "will-nevers" for you to think about. You may also find your own "may-nots" and "will-nevers". But always remember the Christ teaching:

"Only truth shall set you free."

Best. Kai Chen 陈凯

Saturday, January 16, 2010

China and Google: No hits? 谷歌向中共党朝说“不”

陈凯一语: Kai Chen's Words:

www.kaichenblog.blogspot.com

一个私人资产公司做到了美国/西方政府做不到的事 - 向“中共党朝”说“不”。 这证实了我所断言的是对的:政府与群体并不是道德的载体与向导。 它们往往是道德虚无与道德腐败的源泉。 只有个体是道德的载体与道德的传播者。 --- 陈凯

A private firm (Google) has just done what the seemingly powerful American/Western government(s) should have done but don't have guts to do - say "No" to the Chinese communist party-dynasty. This brave act from Google has demonstrated the accuracy of my assertion: Governments and collectives are not the carriers of morals. Just the opposite, they often are the source of moral nihilism and moral corruption. Only the individual is the carrier of moral values therefore only the individual can spread the truth. --- Kai Chen

China and Google: No hits? 谷歌向中共党朝说“不”


Buffalo News

Search engine takes a welcome stand after series of outrageous cyber-attacks

Updated: January 16, 2010, 7:56 AM

Google’s surprising announcement that it may pull out of China after being hit with major cyber-attacks — attacks it believes originated from that country — may not be all that surprising after all, given the high humanitarian costs of continuing to do business in an atmosphere of strict censorship. Google’s stand on principle deserves applause, but the Internet search engine company must follow through.

The mere threat has caused a major shock wave in both the cyber and real worlds. Google may have decided that its perceived world takeover doesn’t have to include China — although a final decision by the company has yet to be made.

The attack targeted at least 34 different companies and not only provoked Google’s response but also statements by Adobe Systems Inc., whose spokeswoman said the software company had experienced an attack that appeared to be related to the one described by Google. U.S. authorities, including the National Security Agency, are also reportedly involved in investigating the attacks.

Meanwhile, Baidu, a Chinese-run search engine company with close government ties, will continue its rise in that country, where it already has twice Google’s market share.

Google had been taking a bit of a public relations beating from human rights groups and Web- industry officials for launching its Chinese-language google.cn search engine in 2006 and agreeing to a government demand to censor some of its results. The criticism was deserved.

But apparently dealing with a government bent on censorship isn’t easy, which escalating tensions proved last year as China reprimanded and accused the company of having pornography on its sites. YouTube, Google’s video-sharing site, also has fallen victim to censorship and largely has been inaccessible in China since around March. And searching for words such as “Dalai lama,” or “Tiananmen square,” drew a blank result.

Perhaps the final straw came when Google discovered “highly sophisticated and targeted attacks” on dozens of Gmail users who are advocates of human rights in China. Just as Human Rights Watch Director Arvind Ganesan said, a transnational attack on privacy is chilling. But is it possible, as Ganesan suggested, for government companies to develop policies that safeguard rights?

In the past, Google and other companies have acquiesced to the wishes of the Chinese government with regard to censorship and have been roundly and rightly criticized for doing so. Freedom, not censorship, is a hallmark of Internet culture. Cynics may have reason to fear that Google will reassess this situation and come to terms with the government in order to continue doing business in an important and growing part of the global market, but the company has done the right thing — so far.

Thursday, January 14, 2010

儒家传统是中共专制生命力特别强的重要原因 Confucianism and China' Regime

陈凯一语: Kai Chen's Words:

www.kaichenblog.blogspot.com

Confucianism and Chinese despotism have been married for 2000 years. Today's communist regime in China increasingly depends on Confucianism to maintain its control over the Chinese population. The most effective way to maintain its evil regime is to corrupt the soul of the world with Confucianism. That is why the Chinese communist regime spends billions to establish "Confucian Institutes" around the world. --- Kai Chen

“政府养人育人”的儒家腐灵学说已被中国传统专制灌输洗脑中国人两千年了。 今天中国邪恶党政更意识到儒家的传播与自身腐败政权的延续息息相关。 将儒家腐败灭灵恶说传播到全世界去阉割所有人的灵智是中共残喘的最有效手段。 这就是为什么今天中共不惜血本在世界上建立“孔学院”的真实原因。 --- 陈凯

儒家传统是中共专制生命力特别强的重要原因 Confucianism and China' Regime


曾节明

博讯北京时间2009年4月18日

 “六四”大屠杀今年满二十周年了,二十年来,在中国大陆社会,六四的记忆已经消褪得几乎没有血色——新成长起来的“八零后”、“九零后”们,普遍不知“六四”为何物,而在那些知道“六四”、甚至亲身参与过八九民运的人眼中,“六四”越来越成为一组少不更事的模糊镜头,二十年来,回首“六四”,海内外华人们越来越频繁地轻摇着经济动物的脑袋、发出算计的叹息声;同时,各种漠视人血的高论竞相泛起——什么学生闹事是在破坏“改革开放”的大好局面、什么杀人维护社会的安定、什么没有“六四”屠杀就没有后来中国的经济繁荣等等。

 仿佛当年和平示威的学生死得好,为了所谓的经济成就,“安定团结”局面、“中国崛起”,就该不定期地杀一批批活人献祭……

 恐怕也只有中国人的价值观,才能够作如此“灵活”的变通,对西方人来说,罪恶永远是罪恶。因此犹太人会那样“记仇”,他们至今铭记近两千年的“哭墙,不会因为罗马帝国盖世荣耀而忘记罪恶,许多中国人呢,才吃到两块豆腐,就为二十年前的杀人犯叫起好来。

 在共产主义信仰早已破灭的今天,这些歪曲的观念,不仅在大陆很有市场,也在海外华人中大有市场,生活在儒家社会的新加坡人,就特别认同这种看法。

 为什么中国人容易接受这种观念?这其实是儒家传统的价值取向在作祟。 因为共产主义意识形态早已破灭,近二十年来,中共全靠民族主义和借助槽粕传统作精神支撑,而儒家越来越成中共为一己专制正名的主要工具。

 已经普遍不信共产主义的中国人,之所以在六四问题上认同中共歪理者日众,不能不说是受儒家影响的社会和文化传统所造成的。

儒家价值观中深刻影响中国政治主要有三个:

 一是重集体、轻个体的价值取向;一是长幼尊卑观念;三是缺乏人道。儒家一贯强调“国家“、“社稷”为重、并且把君主当作“国家“、“社稷”的化身,将“国家”、 “社稷”、“君主”的利益摆在个人之上,而毫无个人权益的概念,儒家(主要是孟子派)虽然也强调“民为重”、“以苍生为念”,但不论是“民”还是“苍生”,并不是具体的个人,而是整体的概念,类似于中共滥用的“人民”概念。因此,儒家是一种集体主义的论理思想,它把抽象的人置于具体的人之上,主张为集体而牺牲个人,牺牲“小我”,成全“大我”,这是一种压制个人的伦理思想,这种论理的价值观,是不可能生长出宪政民主和人权思想的。

 儒家思想的集体主义属性,与马克思主义内在是相通的,受儒家社会传统的潜移默化深刻影响,中国人普遍形成了一种思维习惯,这种思维习惯使其远比欧美民族更容易认同统治者侵犯个人权益的行为,只要统治者高举“人民利益”、“国家利益”、“民族利益”等镀金幌子,哪怕坏事做绝,中国人都容易视以为常。

 中国儒家社会传统的重集体、轻个体的价值取向,与共产党蔑视个人权利的价值观可谓是“心有灵犀一点通”:六十年来,镇反、土改、反右…“计生”、“严打”、六四屠杀、迫害法轮功、强迫拆迁、强迫征地…中共所行的、不胜枚举的每一项暴政,无不打着人民利益、国家利益、社会利益等为全局谋、为长远计的冠冕堂皇幌子;每一项暴政在实行的当时,都没有引发整体性的社会反弹,原因就在于中国传统社会价值观对共产暴政起了某种内在的支持作用。

 因为儒家社会传统的影响,海内外许多中国人就容易受到表面经济繁荣的迷惑深信中共七歪八邪的说辞:没有六四杀人,就没有“安定团结的大好局面”,就没有后来的“经济奇迹”云云。

 正是儒家重集体、轻个体的价值取向,为中共顽固派“杀二十万,换二十年稳定”的做法提供了深层社会文化的支持:随着共产主义意识形态的崩溃,现在实际上在支撑中共统治的歪念就是中国儒家传统社会的“大局”观念。当年邓小平、陈云等人,对和平示威的同胞下达开枪令,没有军队将领中引发任何公开的反抗,而齐奥塞斯库对本国民众的开枪令,却引发了国防部长的抗命和高级将领的倒戈,这就是不同文化传统社会所造就的必然不同结果。

因为这种轻视视个人的集体主义价值观,儒家倾向于为了“大局”而压制个性,儒家理学所高举的教条“饿死事小,失节事大”,则经典地反映了儒家这种轻视视个人的价值观。为了所谓的“整体”利益对个人采取残酷的惩罚措施,在儒家看来是完全正当的。因此儒家会主张“乱世用重典”,历史上儒家一直支持中国王朝统治者 “杀一儆百”的做法。因为这种价值观的影响,儒家思想缺乏、且难以产生人道主义精神。一千年来,随着儒家思想逐渐占据中国社会主流意识形态,中国统治者的作风和社会习气不是更文明了、而是更残忍了;自南宋以后,凌迟这种全世界最惨无人道的死刑、缠足这种有违人道的陋习,均随着儒家理学的兴起愈演愈烈、到清朝时登峰造极。儒家即使没有直接促使中国社会的残忍化,也在很大程度上纵容了中国向残忍虚伪的方向发展。

 不能不说,儒家的这种残酷的倾向和残酷的原因,与马克思主义的残酷的倾向及其原因,内在是相通的

 而且,儒家与马克思主义还有另一大暗合之处,那就是无神论倾向。

 马克思主义公开彻底否定宗教,马克思认为宗教是剥削阶级借以麻痹劳动者反抗精神的精神鸦片。

 儒家虽然没有公开否定有神信仰,但孔子从一开始就“敬鬼神而远之”、“子不语怪力乱神”,儒家从一开始就没有彼岸世界的概念,因此儒家没有“天堂”、“地狱”等概念;孔子说:“未知生、安知死?”在孔子亲自铺设的精神框架下,儒家发展成一种纯粹现世的信仰体系;儒家大力攻击佛教“无君无父”,从来不承认转世轮回和因果报应。

 由于因此儒家没有“天堂”、“地狱”等概念,也不承认转世轮回和因果报应,儒家的信仰者也就没有罪恶感,因此儒家的二号宗师孟子会提出“性善” 说,“人之初,性本善”也成为儒家的重要信条。但实际上,人的本性自私,因为自私,人更容易作恶,因此,基督教性本恶的“原罪”说,要远比儒家的“性善” 说更接近真理。

 “性善”说的最重要影响,就是使人没有罪恶感,既然人本来就是“善”的,何来“原罪”?不信“原罪”,何来罪恶感?因此,儒家信徒缺乏忏悔精神,对儒家信徒来说,任何罪恶都可以用“人非圣贤,孰能无过”释然视之、行若无事。因为没有罪恶感,儒家信徒一方面容易纵容自身的恶,另一方面纵容君主的恶——为尊者讳:一些成功的君主,尽管穷凶极恶,却被儒家吹捧为“圣主”。

 缺乏忏悔精神,就必定缺乏人道情感。因为失没有超世俗的崇高信念,人就容易受利欲驱动,在纯粹利欲的驱动下,人恻隐之心麻木不仁,就会更容易做出许多堕落和残暴的事情来。儒家信徒正因为没有超世俗的崇高信仰体系,因此普遍容易为利欲驱动,尽管儒家有着繁琐的道德信条。自南宋以降,大儒们几乎“满口仁义道德、满脑子男盗女娼”,理学创始人朱熹本身就是典型,明朝思想家李贽指出,道貌岸然的大儒们,无不“心存高官,志在巨富”,这生动地揭示了儒士们的虚伪和卑琐。在儒家理学登峰造极的明朝和满清,儒家(特别是儒家理学)信徒几乎成了假仁假义的代名词。

 这就是为什么自南宋以后,随着儒家的坐大,中国的王朝越来越残暴和腐败的原因。

 正因为容易受利欲驱动,儒家信徒在历史上远没有基督徒那种殉道的勇气,儒士们的勇敢甚至不如革命时期的共产党员。因为在共产意识形态亢旺之际,马克思的徒子徒孙们好歹还有共产乌托邦天堂的信仰,儒士们则没有任何超世俗的信仰。

 因为无神论的影响,共产党的信徒们“天不怕,地不怕”,什么坏事都敢做;而儒家的信徒们则利欲熏心、假仁假义、“以理杀人”、以道德的名义,做出诸多腐败和残暴的事情来。

 除列宁等个别疯狂的无神论者外,前苏联和东欧的共产政权领导人外壳虽然是共产党党徒,内在却有着潜移默化的、抹不去的基督教(东正教)影响,这种宗教的影响与其邪恶的共产信条发生着无声的、深刻的冲突,不同程度地悄然抵消着欧洲共产独裁者的邪恶,这就是作为欧洲最凶残的独裁者,斯大林会远比毛泽东更尊重宗教、文化、艺术的根本原因。斯大林于二战期间“大发慈悲”,突然放开宗教信仰禁锢;毛泽东则决不会发这种“慈悲”。

 而中国的共产独裁者,其内在有着潜移默化的、抹不去的儒家传统影响,这种影响与其邪恶的共产信条、专制独裁思想观念暗通款曲、相辅相成、相得益彰,它不同程度地悄然强化着中国共产独裁者身上的邪恶,为其残暴决策提供强有力的人文支持。

 这就是同为顽固派共产独裁者,邓小平、陈云、

胡锦涛等人可以毫无心理障碍地以屠杀同胞保专制,而前东欧国家的领导人却普遍下不了狠手的根本原因。而面对邓小平、陈云这样穷凶极恶的决策,远比当年叶利钦更为有利的赵紫阳,却毫无反抗的道德勇气。这也是前东欧国家能够一齐于1989年和平演变,而中国却不能的最重要原因。

 共产专制在中国特别顽固的另一项原因,就是中国儒家传统土壤所长出的老人政治毒株,这是除同为华人社会的新加坡外,其他所有国家所没有的东西。在儒家的长期影响下,中国人孝敬长辈的传统,被扭曲成老人政治传统,曾经当权的老人,从王朝的“太上皇”到红朝的“中顾委主任”、“元老”,可以“交位不交权”、 “退而不休”…名不正言不顺地继续干预政权运作、甚至幕后操控政局。这种荒唐的传统,大概是其他任何民族的政治思维所无法理解的。

 这种百年前慈禧太后垂帘听政的做法,自邓小平开始,居然再次成为中国的政治惯例。随着江泽民集团的退休、胡锦涛集团的行将退休,中国的老人政治集团越来越庞大,庞大的顽固派老人集团,无比顽固地阻碍着任何改良措施的出台,使得任何放松专制的改革成为不可能。这就加深了专制独裁体制在中国的顽固性。

 综上所诉,为什么共产专制的生命力在中国(包括深受中国文化影响的朝鲜、越南)远比其在欧洲强大?因为欧洲有基督教消减共产主义的邪恶,中国等东亚国家却有儒家助长共产主义的邪恶。

 随着共产主义意识形态破产,欧洲的共产政权纷纷倒塌,但在中国,中共却可以依赖儒家延长专制的寿命。这也是胡锦涛上台以来大力推崇儒家的根本原因。


 曾节明 成稿于二〇〇九年三月二十八日星期六中午 [博讯首发,转载请注明出处]- 支持此文作者/记者(博讯 boxun.com)

Wednesday, January 13, 2010

最佳社会四大要素:个体价值/基督精神/联邦宪政/英文语言 Four Essentials

最佳社会四大要素:个体价值/基督精神/联邦宪政/英文语言 Four Essentials

陈凯一语:

www.kaichenblog.blogspot.com

纵观世界,美国是人类历史上最自由,最进步,最繁荣,最道德,最具有活力与创造力的人的社会。 个体主义与个体价值,基督精神与终极道德感,联邦宪政与小政府大社会,英文作为法律教育科学的最佳用语是美国社会的四大要素。 世界上其它社会有的只有这四大要素的某些部分,如欧洲的大部分社会,亚洲的一些社会。 中国社会则根本没有任何的这些要素。 世界上人和社会的进步程度也都取决于它们在多大程度上与意愿上试图取得这四大要素。 --- 陈凯

If you study all the societies in the world, you will find that America is the freest, the most progressive, the most prosperous, the most ethical, the most lively and the most creative and productive country on earth. Individualism with God-given rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, Christianity with awareness of existence of moral absolutes, constitutional federalism founded on the principle of limited government, and English language as the communication tool used in law, education and sciences are the four essentials for all the achievements in American society. In comparison or contrast with other parts of the world, some such as those in Europe and some in Asia only have parts of the four elements. Others like China have none. Not surprisingly, the degree of freedom, prosperity, creativity and productivity, and the speed of progress of all the societies in the world vary according to whether or not any particular country has and is willing to acquire these four essentials. --- Kai Chen


*********************************************

Dear Visitors:

* Individualism with God-given rights for each to pursue life, liberty and happiness

* Christianity with awareness of existence of moral absolutes

* Constitutional federalism founded on the principle of limited government

* English language as the communication tool used in law, education and sciences


I list these four essentials of a progressive society for all of you to ponder and examine. Those societies who measure up to these four fundamental elements are those who are doing well and progressing toward a better tomorrow. Those who do not measure up or those who reject these four essentials are those societies mired in stagnation and perpetual turmoil. They are going nowhere and they are going down the drain.

Let us examine these four essentials for a society's positive direction toward progress:

1. Individualism with God-given rights for each to pursue life, liberty and happiness:

On this 50th anniversary of publication of Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged", we will remind ourselves that Ayn Rand, like almost everyone in America, was an immigrant from Russia. She, much like Copernicus and Galileo in the realm of physical science, pointed out that in the realm of morality and human society it is the individual, NOT the society or any collective, that is the fountainhead of creativity and productivity. It is the individual, NOT the collective, that is the sun where the energy is produced and emitted. A society thus must be revolving around the individual, not the other way around. Hence, without this correct awareness of the objective reality, any society will never progress for it will suppress the very source of the energy and creativity.

2. Christianity with awareness of existence of moral absolutes

To interpret Ayn Rand's works mistakenly by injecting moral-relativism is a common mistake among the liberals and the American left. Absolute power, not truth, thus becomes the focal point of contention with the liberals and the left in large, much like the socialists and communists anywhere else in the world. America is never a nation with NO God like a communist country. America is never a nation OF God like a theocracy. America is a nation UNDER God, not men. Christianity thus establishes the moral foundation of America. The origin of life, the origin of consciousness, the origin of morality thus are explained via a life\freedom -affirming, happiness\joy oriented belief. Freedom will triumph over tyranny; truth will triumph over falsehood; life will triumph over death; good will triumph over evil; progress will triumph over stagnation; joy and happiness will triumph over misery and suffering.... By focusing on today's human behavior under a moral compass, a better tomorrow becomes a goal and possibility. Hope is thus instilled and inculcated into the human psyche.

3. Constitutional federalism founded on the principle of limited government

Separation of power, a government of the people, by the people and for the people, inner checks and balances and the principle of limited government all mark the American style constitutional federalism. Presidential election, not a parliamentary system with a prime minister, ensures a constant element of change and innovation in governmental reform and policy initiatives. Thus American society is endowed with a rare vitality and risk-taking innovations. Constant but limited human experiment by the government to ensure a freer society is thus implemented via a written constitution. Stagnation and rigidity hence are diminished. Small government and big society with powerful individuals are ensured.

4. English language as the communication tool used in law, education and sciences

Compared with other languages, English language lacks the rigidity and complexity which often constitute barriers in educating a society's population. It often has Latin roots, Greek roots, German roots, French roots.... It has no human restrictions put on it in its constant evolution and development, not like some other European languages such as French. English language is simple to use, free to create, and easy to understand. The best legal, literal and scientific minds of human history had mostly been written in English. And English-speaking countries lead the world in all the aspects of human endeavors. English language as a tool to conceptualize and interpret natural and human phenomena has greatly contributed to the history of human progress. Failure to recognize the contribution of the English language is to deny the simple fact and the truth all together.

The four essentials I list here are essentials for any human society to progress toward hope and a better tomorrow. I hope all of you think deeper into this issue and post your own opinions here on my forum.

www.kaichenblog.blogspot.com

Best wishes to you all. Kai Chen

Tuesday, January 12, 2010

Fewer free countries in 2009/Freedom House 21世纪专制的进取

陈凯一语: Kai Chen's Words:

www.kaichenblog.blogspot.com

如果在专制进取的年代(如二战前和冷战中)没有为自由价值唱赞的道德巨人如丘吉尔和里根站出来,我真不知道今天的世界会是怎样。 在这21世纪专制黑暗进取的年代中,我希望每一个热爱自由的人站起来面对以中共为首的共产法西斯与以奥巴马为代表的西方绥靖派们说“不、绝不”。 --- 陈凯

If facing the advancement of despotism/tyranny, such as after WWI and during the Cold War, no body wanted to take a stand for freedom such as Churchill and Reagan, I couldn't imagine what the world would be like today. Now facing an unprecedented surge of despotism/tyranny world wide, I only hope that every freedom-loving person will stand up and resist the darkness led by the Chinese "Comfascist" regime. We must say "No. Never" to human slavery under governments, including here in America. --- Kai Chen


Fewer free countries in 2009/Freedom House 21世纪专制的进取

Daniel Trotta
NEW YORK

Tue Jan 12, 2010 9:36am EST NEW YORK (Reuters)

Civil freedoms around the world lost ground for the fourth straight year in 2009 with Iraq improving, Afghanistan falling back and China acting as if it were under siege by its own citizens, Freedom House said on Tuesday.

Bahrain, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Yemen moved into "not free" category, raising the total to 47 from 42 in 2008. The number of electoral democracies fell from 119 to 116, the lowest since 1995.

Eighty-nine countries were designated "free" and 58 "partly free" in the report issued by the U.S.-based advocate for democracy and human rights.

The four-year deterioration marked the longest decline since Freedom House began its annual survey in 1972.

Yemen, the Arab world's poorest nation, saw political rights deteriorate in the face of rapidly worsening security and the "increased marginalization of the parliament and other political institutions," the report said.

The report cited also "growing paranoia of even the largest and most headstrong" of the world's authoritarian powers.

"No country can compete in this respect with China, which -- despite its waxing economic and military prowess -- behaves as if it were under siege by its own citizens," the report said.

China's growing economic influence abroad helped repressive countries by providing investment free of the conditions often imposed by the West, the report's lead researcher said.

"As long as China can get strategic minerals or some kind of economic gain, they will invest in those countries," said Arch Puddington, director of research for Freedom House.

"It's a problem, especially in Africa. Some of these authoritarian countries have an option -- they don't have to carry out reforms that the United States or Europe might be demanding," he said.


While Asia was cited as a region of modest improvements, the report cited diminished freedom in Afghanistan, where a "deeply flawed presidential poll exacerbated an already unstable security situation and exposed the prevalence of corruption within the government."

Iraq, by contrast, showed improvement as the rest of the Middle East and North Africa region "suffered a number of significant setbacks."

"Iraq's political rights rating improved in light of provincial elections, which were generally regarded as fair and competitive, and due to the government's enhanced autonomy as the phased withdrawal of U.S. troops got under way," the report said.

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



Democracy's Wane 民主在退缩中的21世纪

The world is in a 'freedom recession.'

After the West won the Cold War, democracy flourished in the world as never before. No more. The tide of political and human freedom hasn't merely slowed but in recent years has turned in the other direction. Seeing that the U.S. midwifed the post-1989 world, these trends are of more than passing interest.

Democracy's troubles are summed up in "Freedom in the World 2010," the yearly report card published today by Freedom House. We're in a "freedom recession," the advocacy group says. For the fourth consecutive year, more countries saw declines in political and civic rights than advances, the longest such period of deterioration in the 40 year history of this widely cited report.

Start with the "axis of engagement" states that President Obama sought to butter up diplomatically in his first year in office. The authoritarian regimes in Russia, Venezuela, Iran and China all became more repressive in 2009, according to Freedom House measures. America's attempts to play nice didn't make the other side any nicer.


Military coups rocked four African states. Central Asia's one democratic hope, Kyrgyzstan, was demoted this year from the "partly free" to "not free" category.

The Mideast remains the world's least fertile soil for democracy. Only one nation—Israel—qualifies as "free." Most of its Arab neighbors went further down the path of repression. There were declines even in Jordan and Morocco, whose moderate kings moved in the past year to concentrate political power.

Iraq and Lebanon are notable exceptions. Along with Turkey, both can lay a claim to being Muslim democracies. Both, not incidentally, were beneficiaries of George W. Bush's "democracy agenda" in the mid-2000s.

The picture isn't all gloomy. Eighty-nine countries—which represent nearly half the world's population—are "free," according to the Freedom House measures, and 116 are electoral democracies. Twenty years ago, only 61 and 76 fit those respective categories. Never before have as many people lived without tyranny.

The recent reversals coincide, however, with America's own waning interest in democracy promotion. This didn't start with the Obama ascendancy. Chastened by the 2006 midterm election debacle and sinking public support for his Mideast policies, President Bush took rhetorical and practical emphasis off his own flagship foreign-policy agenda.

The current Administration has changed the focus entirely. In its dealings with Russia and China, strategic issues trump any talk of democracy or human rights, which earlier this year in Beijing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton notably called a distraction to bilateral relations. Ditto in Iran.


If in the days of Jack Kennedy or Ronald Reagan, we worked to fashion the world into a better place guided by the belief that the urge to live in freedom is universal, today we act as if we are resigned to taking the world as it is. We used to nudge countries toward liberal democracy. Now we assume the price of nudging is too high.

Meanwhile, the enemies of democracy have set out to undo the gains of the post-Berlin Wall era, and many are succeeding.

Monday, January 11, 2010

Charlize Theron Could Topline Atlas Shrugged Mini-Series 女星将主演“无奈大力神”

陈凯一语: Kai Chen's Words:

我一直期待着安. 兰德的“无奈大力神”(Atlas Shrugged)被制成电影或电视连续剧。 这一天终于来了。 “源泉”(Fountainhead) 与“我们活着的人”(We the Living)已被制成电影。 望你能选购观看。 愿自由,个体精神与资本主义道德观在人们的灵智中成长。 --- 陈凯

I have always wished that Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" would be made into a movie or TV series. It seems my wish is finally granted. "Fountainhead" and "We the Living" have already made movies and I hope you will see them sometimes. Let Freedom, Individualism and Capitalist Ethics grow steadily in your heart and mind. --- Kai Chen


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

Charlize Theron Could Topline Atlas Shrugged Mini-Series
女星将主演“无奈大力神”


Posted on Tuesday, July 21st, 2009 by Russ Fischer

When the economic crisis went into full swing, bookshops started to notice an odd trend: people who hadn’t read much more than a Grisham or Clancey novel in the last decade were suddenly rabid Ayn Rand fans. Atlas Shrugged, with its message of capitalism unfettered by government control, blasted back onto bestseller charts in the last year, making the long-gestating film adaptation seem a lot more likely. Now Charlize Theron is seriously interested, says the Risky Biz Blog, and because she and the producers are concerned that simply making a feature film wouldn’t do justice to the novel’s epic length (1100+ pages) it may instead become a miniseries for Epix, the new pay-cable network that Lionsgate is setting up with MGM and Viacom.

Theron was one of a small group of actresses (among them Anne Hathaway and Julia Roberts) that expressed interest in heroine Dagny Taggart a few months back. Theron’s commitment to the project remains a grey area, though it is said she’s been driving development on the project in recent months.

This is only the latest chapter in an effort to film the novel that is becoming almost as epic as the book itself. Loads of talent have been involved over the past four decades, and Angelina Jolie has been the prime mover on the film for quite some time. For a while director Vadim Perelman was attached. Or so the trades said, and so he said in many interviews. But in June of last year Jolie claimed he’d never been part of the project. Now, appropriately, it seems like she’s taking a back seat in the development. James Hart and Braveheart writer Randall Wallace have both written drafts (Hart’s said to be longer and more ‘mini-series friendly’) but any adaptation of the gigantic, didactic novel (really, this thing is more of a sprawling Rand manifesto than a narrative) is going to be problematic. If adapted as a mini-series, one whole episode could be that damned long speech by John Galt, the mysterious guy who leads a secession of creative and innovative minds from society.

Beyond the current surge of interest in the book there’s one more reason to get this going sooner rather than later: if a film doesn’t go into production by the end of next year, the book option reverts back to the Rand estate. At that point, you can bet that the price to renewing it will skyrocket.

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

Read more: Charlize Theron Could Topline Atlas Shrugged Mini-Series | /Film http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/07/21/charlize-theron-could-topline-atlas-shrugged-mini-series/#ixzz0cKBky0JS

The 21st-century Obama-Mao slavery 'partnership' 奥-毛苟同时代

陈凯一语: Kai Chen's Words:

www.kaichenblog.blogspot.com

将毛像挂在白宫的圣诞树上说明了当今美国政治文化的进一步腐败。 冷战结束以后,奥巴马当局对一中国为首的世界邪恶专制的绥靖,妥协与合作将与西方在一战后对希特勒的绥靖与妥协一样,将会对世界的自由与和平造成重大威胁。

是否自由本身会消灭自由,自由的人们将拭目以待并应做出举动捍卫自由 - 将奥巴马及同僚们选/逐出权力层。 --- 陈凯

The very appearance of Mao's image on the Christmas tree in the White House (2009) further demonstrates the moral corruption/degradation in American political culture today. The parallel between the West's appeasement toward Hitler after WWI and today's Obama's appeasement after the end of the Cold War is unmistakable. The world must be ready to brace for an unprecedented disaster when America/West must confront the increasingly emboldened ComFascist China.

Whether Freedom will destroy itself, free beings will have to decide and act to defend freedom - Please use your vote (in 2010 and 2012) to eliminate Obama and his cohorts. --- Kai Chen


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

Thursday, January 7, 2010

The 21st-century Obama-Mao slavery 'partnership' 奥-毛苟同时代

Lev Navrozov 列夫. 那夫罗佐夫


(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.)

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

Soon after Obama had been elected U.S. President, in a process that has little to do with the selection of Prime Minister in England, he held in Washington, D.C. a two-day conference to which he had invited some top officials of the People's Republic of China, and declared in his address that the United States he represented and the People's Republic of China, created by one of one of the most vicious dictators of the twentieth century (along with the Bolshevik Stalin and the National Socialist Hitler), are — can you imagine it? — partners.

In my column I described the conference as the most important evil event of the century after Hitler's decision to develop the "atom bomb." Fortunately, Hitler failed, since in 1941 he invaded Russia, was routed by Stalin, and committed suicide, while the "atom bomb" was successfully produced in the United States (owing to Einstein's letter to Roosevelt in 1939).
Recently we had a new triumph of President Obama (of the United States?) and his American-Chinese partnership: the White House Christmas tree ornaments included Mao Tse-Tung, the vicious creator and dictator of the "People's Republic of China," who had far surpassed Stalin or Hitler in the number of civilians tortured to death or killed without any legal investigation (forget about a trial). Mao now has his place in the White House.

On Dece. 24, 2009, a FoxNews.com article "White House Christmas Décor Featuring Mao Zedong Comes Under Fire." On Jan. 5, I checked the New York Times content, according to the Yahoo! post. There was nothing in the newspaper about the Mao and Obama ornaments decorating the White House Christmas tree or "the fire" this caused.

Imagine Hitler's ornament on Christmas tree in the British Parliament before Hitler began trying to conquer England, but instead invaded Stalin's Russia in 1941, which led to his debacle and suicide. Well, if Churchill's predecessor, Prime Minister Chamberlain, had played, with respect to the "new" Germany, established by Hitler, the same role Obama has been playing with respect to the "new" China, established by Mao, Chamberlain would have been sentenced to death as a traitor, and Churchill would have been approved.

But how did Churchill himself become the Prime Minister? Churchill had been arguing that the "new" Germany presented the mortal danger to England and other free countries. He had a small audience. But when Hitler resumed his invasions, it became clear to more people that he was right, while his numberless opponents, including Chamberlain, were wrong. At this point, let me quote my Britannica, volume 5, page 750:

"On May 10, 1940… Chamberlain resigned [because Hitler had shown his true colors]… and advised the king to call Churchill to be prime minister. … On May 13 [that is, within three days!] Churchill faced the House of Commons for the first time as prime minister. The Commons gave him a unanimous vote of confidence."

In the United States, the U.S. President is elected by a majority of psychiatrically healthy adults. This means that Churchill would have never been elected because a majority of the English people did not know what he was writing and talking about. He contended (and now, 70 years later, we see that he was correct!) that Hitler meant the return of all mankind, including Europe and the United States, to what I call "slavery," since it would be wrong to drop ugly names in the belief that the ugly realitlies they denote will thus also disappear. Obama believes, as well as did Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Hitler, that slavery (with them as global slave owners) is the beautiful future of mankind, except that it will be called by some new beautiful word, like the word "communism" in 1917, which actually denoted a utopia, meaning that there will be no money, and everyone will have free whatever he or she wants.

To elect Obama was the same as to elect any other American understandable to most Americans-a majority of voters. Since a majority in every country consists mainly of mediocrities, why elect incomprehensible Churchill if it is possible to elect Obama, whom any other Obama understands? If the prime minister in England had been "elected by a majority of voters," Chamberlain, not Churchill, would have become prime minister in 1940 and the world would have become slavery, with Hitler as the global slave-owner-in-chief.

Today the situation is more dangerous than ever. For the first time, science and technology belong not to small nations (even Stalin's Russia was a small nation, compared to China) but to a nation whose population accounts for about one-fifth of mankind and which is four times larger than that of the United States.

At last, the project of Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, and Mao Tse-tung seems feasible, and the fact that the U.S. President has become a voluntary warrior among the warriors for beautiful world slavery is perhaps significant.

This brings us again to the question whether freedom helps itself to survive or becomes a source of its own self-annihilation.

Freedom saved freedom in the 1940s, since it is owing to freedom that a German named Einstein could travel to the United States and persuade Roosevelt to begin developing "the atom bomb," which thus appeared in the United States before Hitler's "atom bomb," which would be able to make the world a world of slavery and him, Hitler, the world slave-owner-in-chief.

But freedom also enables millions of people like Obama to become with impunity voluntary traitors to their own country, that is, to freedom. Marx and Lenin used freedom to teach how to destroy freedom and thus become happy. Hitler enjoyed Wagner, but he never cared that in his utopian slavery there would be no composers as remarkable as Wagner. It is possible that death as horrible as the death of Kamenev, Zinoviev, or Bukharin is awaiting Obama as well. Well, Hitler never thought that he would have to commit suicide to escape the Russians, who entered Berlin, along with their secret police.


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

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.