【禁闻】前加情报官：孔子学院是间谍机构 Confucius Institute Rejected

【禁闻】前加情报官：孔子学院是间谍机构  
Confucius Institute Rejected

【新唐人2014年10月29日讯】在过去的一年中，加拿大和美国的多个教育机构，以孔子学院〝干涉学术自由〞为名，决定终止与其合作。令人意外的是，日前中共自己也单方面终止了与加拿大的孔子学院合作协议。在中共想大力展示所谓软实力的今天，为什么会这样呢？请看以下分析报导。

10月23号，湖南省教育厅通过邮件，通知加拿大的多伦多教育局，中方将单方面终止孔子学院协议。 对此，前加拿大情报局（CSIS）亚太事务总监胡尼奥‧卡瑞亚（Michel Juneau-Katsuya），在接受美国中文媒体《大纪元》采访时表示，在被多所大学和学院〝解约〞后，孔子学院首次主动退场，并不让人感到意外，因为这是大势所趋。 　　

卡瑞亚说，〝孔子学院多年来在许多国家一个常用的策略就是，通过政治上的渗透，操控其政治观点和言论。 〞卡瑞亚还表示，他已经在多个场合说过，孔子学院还是一个间谍机构，被中共所操控和利用。许多西方国家的公开文件也明确点出这一点。他透露，现在加拿大国内情报部门仍在调查，孔子学院员工试图访问政府机密文件、政府帐户和邮箱，有的还要求给他们配政府邮箱，这样他们就能够进入政府系统。而卡瑞亚认为，这类行为，完全就是间谍行为。

 前中共情报官李凤智表示，中共情报部门通常会用各种外派部门和机构，来做情报活动，尤其是官方背景很强的机构。因此，他对有些地方的孔子学院从事情报活动，一点也不意外。前中共情报官李凤智：〝中共设立孔子学院的时候，应该是有很大的战略考虑的。我私人看，这是一个非常非常好的一个渠道，来把情报人员安插在里面。〞

李凤智认为，中共官方率先发布声明终止合作，是为了避免尴尬，挽回脸面的举动。其实，在10月1号多伦多教育局委员会讨论孔子学院时，多伦多华联会代表、加拿大福建华联总会、加拿大华人同乡会联会总会代表，都支持孔子学院一方发言，想让教育局批准孔子学院。此外，还有加拿大福建华联总会、北京协会等团体和个人在多伦多教育局外面示威。 　　

卡瑞亚表示，这些希望孔子学院被批准的团体，都是受到中共控制或影响的，其中一些在公开资讯上就可以查到它们与中共的关系。

不过，多伦多教育局计划委员会教委，没有受到孔子学院和抗议团体的影响，以6:1压倒性多数，决定在10月29号全体教委会议上，提出终止与孔子学院的合作。

实际上，从2004年中共在海外成立孔子学院至今，短短十年间已有460多家孔子学院先后建成，教师由中国国内派遣，使用的教科书也全部由中共当局编制。 目前，孔子学院这种迅猛的发展势头受到了阻力。

今年上半年，美国大学教授协会以侵害〝学术自由〞为由，呼吁重新对〝孔子学院〞进行检讨。理由是孔子学院聘用的讲师及授课内容，都强烈反映中共政府的意向。加拿大教师协会也以同样理由，呼吁加拿大各高校抵制中共政府资助的孔子学院。今年9月25号和10月1号，美国芝加哥大学和宾州州立大学，分别宣布终止与孔子学院的合作。

前中国国家篮球队员陈凯表示，自己读过孔子学院的免费教材。他认为这些教材的价值观是让世界没有好坏对错，没有真假是非，只承认强弱和权力。他说，这种宣传是污染全世界、泯灭人良知的东西。

前中国国家篮球队员陈凯：〝当西方能够接受孔子学院的时候，也就是在某种程度上接受了中共（政权）的合法性。他们最想建立的就是想泯灭西方人们的良知，就是让人们不去问什么是真假，中共的政权是合法还是不合法。〞

陈凯指出，中共建孔子学院的目的，是异化西方对中共的政策，从而增强中共政权的安全。从目前香港的情况可以看到，中共的这一目的达到了。

采访/陈汉 编辑/宋风 后制/陈建铭 - See more at: http://www.ntdtv.com/xtr/gb/2014/10/29/a1149645.html#sthash.vcEslBiH.dpuf
----------------------------------------------------------
孔学院/孔学堂是中共党朝对世界“圣战”的利器
Confucianism as Tool of Chinese "Jihad"

陈凯 Kai Chen 11/6/2014

www.kaichenblog.blogspot.com

If you still don't quite grasp the motive why the Chinese communist party-dynasty attempts to spread Confucius Institutes/Classrooms around the world, I now give you a parallel of Islamic "Jihad" against the infidels (those who still have conscience and soul):

Islamic Jihadists aim to convert the unbelievers by force and threat of violence. If you don't believe, they will kill you physically by beheading, mutilation and murder. Confucianism, with spread of Confucius Institutes/Classrooms under the auspice of the Chinese communist regime, is more insidious and effective to castrate a person emotionally, mentally and spiritually, making one nothing but a walking-dead. This is often done before one even realizes he/she is dying inside, gradually becoming nothing but an empty shell.

Power by authority, with no moral constraints, is the central theme of Confucianism. Everything and everyone is made a subject of the power structure by force and threat of violence, with a seemingly benigh appearance. Once you become a convert of Confucian zombie, you will act to Confucianize others, starting from your own family by making them your own subjects. The zombification thus spreads exponantially.

Confucianism's insidiousness often starts from making one study Chinese character-based syllabic language, copying and mimicking everything the Chinese ancestors have done and invented. One's individuality gradually disappears in this process. All one focuses on is to obey and not to offend the authority. One's unique meaning by God thus forever is erased as one's sole purpose in life becomes serving the authority/government only.

The dehumanization process goes painlessly in physical sense as one loses his/her creativity, imagination, love and capacity to truly feel and enjoy life. Yet the castration of one's humanity is achieved with a mind-numbing spiritual drug, powerfully comforting yet effectively dehumanizing.

By eliminating a person's soul/conscience to judge what is right or wrong, good or evil, truth or falsehood, Confucianism instills a person nothing but an instinct and infinite shrewdness for power struggle. He/she will judge everything by inside/outside, strong/weak, male/female, power/powerless, friend/enemy, family/stranger, etc....

The billions of dollars the Chinese party-dynasty has spent around the world to establish Confucius Institutes/Classrooms is with only one purpose - to secure its grip of power and to legitimize its own criminal authority. The evil regime has waged Jihad Chinese style on the world and against humanity for a decade already. Now some Western educational authorities start to wake up to its true purpose by the Chinese regime. I only hope more and more people will wake up from their "political correct" nightmare and "cultural equality", and start a fight to protect their own soul and conscience from this insidious assult rooted in ancient despotic Chinese culture.

Be vigilant, people. Freedom is indeed never free.

从香港抗议看“法制”、自由与英文语言的必要 Rule of Law vs. Rule by Law

From Hong Kong Protest to See Rule of Law, British Colonial Tradition and the Importance of English Language

从香港抗议看“法制”、自由与英文语言的必要

By Kai Chen 陈凯, October 3, 2014

www.kaichenblog.blogspot.com 

As I watched the BBC coverage on Hong Kong student protest, I deeply sensed a very disturbing and sad phenomenon – an entirely opposite interpretation of the British tradition of Rule of Law from its original meaning by a Chinese speaking population.  As some physical altercation broke out between pro-Beijing Chinese speaking mobs and mostly English speaking student protesters, a Beijing’s mouthpiece appearing on BBC accused the student of violating “rule of law”.  And the students on the program somehow are acquiescent of such absurd accusation, using “civil disobedience” as their only defense.  I observed a horrible mal-interpretation of the concept of “rule of law”.  And such misunderstanding of the concept will possibly lead to meaningless actions and negative consequences, even tragedy. 

Under the British rule before 1997, English language is the basis to understanding legal and political terms and concepts.  And the concept of “rule of law” was based on the principle that freedom is God-given and laws are human attempt to safeguard individual freedom by curbing human abuses from the government.  Hong Kong residents, though without election, enjoyed maximum individual freedom with minimum government corruption.  This situation has been gradually reversed with the British departure in 1997.  The influx of Chinese speaking government officials and mainland residents gradually erodes the “rule of law”.  Instead, “rule by law” increasing becomes the norm. 

In Chinese language, there is no difference between “rule of law” and “rule by law”.   They are all mixed together into two characters “Fa Zhi”.  Yet the two concepts are entirely opposite to each other:  “Rule of law” as understood with English language is to ensure that government be not governed by some dictator’s whim to trample on individuals’ freedoms.  “Rule by law” as commonly understood in Chinese is that government has the ultimate authority to make laws to control the individuals and govern the society.  The former is for freedom.  The latter is for slavery and despotism. 

Since 1997, rule of law and individual freedom have been gradually and unmistakably eroded and taken away.  More and more, fear of government, corruption of government officials, self-censorship of the media, toeing government official lines and a Fascist tendency of businesses serving Beijing’s government interests become prevalent.  Now the “White Paper” Beijing issued to blatantly violate the “Basic Law” established to safeguard Hong Kong people’s freedom was the result of more than a decade of cultural erosion.  A despotic culture aimed only to preserve the power of the government and the interests of those who are associated with Beijing gradually stifles the way of life Hong Kong residents enjoyed, even took for granted, under the British rule.  Fear replaces joy and achievement to have become the new norm of Hong Kong.  Lies, falsehood and dead silence in the face of injustice and repression, all in the name of unity, peace, maintaining status quo in order not to offend Beijing masters permeated a culture in which a moral standard of human contact and doing business was a general rule.  Lawlessness from Beijing and the despotic Chinese cultural tradition of parental government and infantile people dependent on the rulers have edged away individual freedom under the British rule.  Now the same rhetoric from those with confused mind and fear of government to defend Beijing’s “rule by law” comes out again and again to attack the student protesters. 

Who has broken the law in the first place?  It is not the students.  It is Beijing and the communist party-dynasty which bases their legitimacy only by the muzzles of guns and by lies and deceptions.  Who will be the ultimate victims of such lawlessness in Hong Kong?  It is not just the students.  It is the entire population of Hong Kong and especially the business community.  Without trust and with a moral code broken down under Beijing’s iron fist, no meaningful transaction of values will happen.  True stability will disappear with Beijing’s irrational orders aimed only to save the communist dynasty.  Instead, stagnation and silence will reign supreme and the population of Hong Kong will be “Zombified” to become soulless walking dead. 

I am glad to have witnessed that most Hong Kong student protesters are English-proficient.  They are able to communicate with the rest of the world with logic and reason, thanks to English language.  There is an unmistakable gap of understanding the world between those who speak English language and those who are stuck with their ancient irrational mother tone.  With a logical language, questioning Beijing’s government and its legitimacy is a natural extension of using the language.  This is probably the most conspicuous difference between Hong Kong protesters and the crowd on Tiananmen Square in 1989. 

In the long run, the student protesters with their goal to ensure a genuine election and democracy in Hong Kong are protecting Hong Kong’s business interest and prosperity, not harming it.  Those who have come out to criticize the student protesters should understand their own mal-interpretation of “rule of law”, confusing with their Chinese despotic tradition of “rule by law”.  They should also understand Hong Kong must go forward toward a future of freedom, not being dragged backward toward a hopeless and soulless existence under the guns of their Beijing masters.  Most of all, they should keenly understand the fundamental premises of “rule of law” – Freedom is God-given, not bestowed upon them by government as some beneficent charity. 
------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Bartlett: 

Very eloquent and correct. May I forward this to the China-POL list?

Thomas Bartlett
Visitng Professor
Stanford University
Yesterday at 12:31pm · 10/3/14

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

Kai Chen: Absolutely Thomas. Please spread this message. It is very important for HK student and people who support the protest to understand the moral foundation of their argument.
Yesterday at 3:23pm · 10/3/14

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

Personal bio of Professor Thomas Bartlett: 

Thomas Bartlett has taught modern and classical Chinese at Cambridge (1975-76), Princeton (1977-79), Harvard (1987-94), Johns Hopkins (1995-96), and La Trobe (1996-1999) Universities, and modern Chinese at Middlebury (1973, 1983, 1987), Wellesley (1986), and Swarthmore (1987) Colleges, before coming to Stanford in 2010. He received the BA (cum laude) in Classics at Harvard (1961), with a thesis on Aeschylus' drama "Agamemnon", read in Greek. Five years' residence (1967-72) as a student in Taipei, Taiwan, ROC, led to receipt of the MA (1972) in early Chinese history at National Taiwan University, with a thesis on Confucian historiographical thought. In 1978 Bartlett was a finalist in the Department of State's selection of a full-time Mandarin interpreter. In 1980 he resided in Beijing, PRC, for six months as interpreter and translator for a major international corporation in contract negotiations with various Chinese official and commercial entities. In 1985 he completed the PhD at Princeton, with a dissertation on Gu Yanwu (1613-82), a classical scholar whose encyclopedic record of China's cultural heritage is widely recognized as an invaluable resource by modern researchers, and whose study of poetic rhymes was very influential in the history of Chinese linguistics. In 1987 Bartlett declined the award of a Mellon post-doctoral fellowship, when told by the offering institution that affirmative action guidelines would make him uncompetitive for a subsequent teaching position there. In 1989 his proficiency in Chinese was graded at level 4 (of 5) by the US Foreign Service Institute. From mid-1989 through 1994, Bartlett was Professor of Chinese Language and Director of Harvard's Chinese Language Program. In 1995-96 he was Director of the Language Teaching Center at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore. From 1996 to 2010, he lived in Melbourne, Australia, and taught Chinese history at La Trobe University. His published writings have included articles on Gu Yanwu, on early Chinese history and, recently, a survey history of China's Song dynasty (960-1279), in Berkshire Encyclopedia of China. He is currently interested in the history of the word "Zhongguo", meaning "Central State", now usually translated as "China", and looks forward to publishing his doctoral dissertation.
 

香港抗议是中共党朝灭亡的开始 Hong Kong Protest Spells the Beginning of the End of CCP Dynasty

香港抗议是中共党朝灭亡的开始 
Hong Kong Protest Spells the Beginning of the End of CCP Dynasty
---------------------------------------
Xi Jinping Could Be China’s Last Communist Ruler

Larry Diamond is Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution and Director of Stanford’s Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law.

At this point, China can neither negotiate nor repress the mass demonstrations

The mammoth protests that have gripped Hong Kong for the past several days have implications far beyond this Special Administrative Region of more than 7 million people. In rejecting Beijing’s plan to allow only sham elections for the next chief executive of Hong Kong, in mobilizing tens of thousands of people into the streets for several days running, and in fashioning a peaceful symbol of resistance and restraint (the umbrella) in the face of an inflammatory overreaction by the police, the youth-led demonstrators have posed the most serious challenge to the authority of the Chinese Communist Party since the massacre in Tiananmen Square 25 years ago.

 

China’s Communist rulers have only themselves to blame for the political crisis in Hong Kong. Since it reverted from British colonial rule to Chinese sovereignty in 1997, Hong Kong has enjoyed significant autonomy and civil freedom under the principle of “one country, two systems.” During these last 17 years, Hong Kongers have waited patiently for Beijing to deliver on the Basic Law’s promise of “gradual and orderly progress” toward “the selection of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage upon nomination by a broadly representative nominating committee in accordance with democratic procedures.” When Beijing announced in 2004 that Hong Kong was “not yet ready” to democratically elect its Chief Executive in 2007, or its legislature in 2008, many in Hong Kong were bitterly disappointed. But people waited hopefully for 2012, or 2017 at the latest. 

The recent eruption of popular outrage was prompted by Beijing’s decision, announced at the end of August, to defer indefinitely the dream of democratic self-governance in Hong Kong. China’s rulers have now delivered an Iranian-style interpretation of “universal suffrage”: everyone can vote, but only for candidates approved by the real rulers. Instead of “one country, two systems,” Hong Kong is getting “one country, one autocracy,” with increasing concentration of economic power and shrinking media and academic freedom.

Hong Kong’s youthful demonstrators are economically worried, but even more so, they are politically indignant. Many, like the 17-year-old student protest leader Joshua Wong, were born after the handover and raised in a prosperous, civically vibrant, and open society. They grew up tweeting and texting, and they see democratic self-governance as both their natural right and their constitutional promise. Many older Hong Kongers remember colonial rule, and cherish the civil freedoms and rule of law that they now see eroding under the lengthening shadow of economic and political control from Beijing. No one knows what percentage of Hong Kong’s population is willing to risk prosperity to press democratic demands to the limit. But hundreds of thousands of protestors and sympathizers view Beijing’s political intransigence as an existential threat to Hong Kong’s future.

This was an avoidable crisis. Over the years, many creative ideas have been floated to realize “gradual and orderly progress” toward democracy. China’s Communist leaders could have negotiated with moderate Hong Kong democrats to gradually expand the range of candidates permitted to contest Chief Executive elections, and to move in stages to a fully directly elected legislature (30 of the 70 members are now elected by narrow functional constituencies). Political compromise could have fashioned a popular majority accepting patient progress. What Hong Kong got instead was no negotiations and no progress, but rather an authoritarian imposition thinly masquerading as popular sovereignty.

Beijing’s intransigence was never solely about Hong Kong, and neither are the current protests. This is a struggle for the future of China itself. President Xi and his fellow Party bosses are consumed with fear that they will meet the same fate as Mikhail Gorbachev if they do not maintain tight, centralized political control. Xi will pursue economic reform. He will try to purge the party and state of brazen corruption (while also purging his rivals along the way). But political reform is ruled out. So, even, is discussion (or teaching or tweeting) about such concepts as “universal values,” “freedom of speech,” “civil society” and “judicial independence.

China is changing rapidly in the wake of rapid economic growth. A civil society is slowly rising, alongside a pragmatic and more independent-minded business class. People now debate issues through social media, even with state controls. The middle class is traveling and gaining exposure to democratic ideas and freedoms, most dangerously, in Taiwan and Hong Kong. Ironically, during this long holiday week when China celebrates its National Day (and now the 65^th anniversary of the Communist Revolution), many Chinese vacationing in Hong Kong are suddenly watching a very different kind of revolution.

China’s rulers are now stuck in a trap of their own making. If they brutally repress mass demonstrations, as they did a quarter century ago, they will gravely damage their international legitimacy, wreck prospects for closer relations with Taiwan, and destroy the civic fabric of Hong Kong. If they do what they should have done months ago — negotiate — they fear they will look to be capitulating to mass pressure, thereby inviting more of it in a country where hundreds of local-level protests erupt daily. Thus they will probably wait, hoping the protests will ebb, while preserving the option of dumping the current Chief Executive, C.Y. Leung, as a sacrificial lamb.

If the protests persist and grow, China’s Communist rulers will face an awful choice, and they may well repeat the tragic mistake of 1989. But this is not the China of 25 years ago. Xi Jinping can no more will an emergent civil society out of existence than King Canute could command the tides of the sea to recede. But alas, King Canute understood the natural limits to his power. Xi Jinping does not appear to do so, and this is why he could well be China’s last Communist ruler.

Larry Diamond is Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution and Director of Stanford’s Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law.