Thursday, December 10, 2009

Andrew Klavan: My Way Into and Out of the Left 我从左倾幻觉走向真实自由

www.kaichenblog.blogspot.com

陈凯一语: Kai Chen's Words:

一个人从浑浊走向清晰、从幻觉走向真实的时刻就是一个人伟大品质--他/她的勇气与对真实的追求突现的时刻。 --- 陈凯

The moment when a person starts to walk from moral confusion toward moral clarity, from a warm illusion toward cold/hard reality and truth, is the moment he/she reveals his/her true character (his/her greatness). --- Kai Chen

陈凯推荐: Kai Chen Recommends:

"如美国的建国者们所知: 拥抱自由的理念就意味着放弃其他貌似崇高的伪理念。 如果你真的向往自由,你就不可能追求财富均等,因为自由会暴露人的才能,努力与运气的不均等。 如果你真的向往自由,你就不可能有财政收入上的安定感, 因为自由竞争会使有的企业成功、有的企业失败。 如果你真的向往自由,你就不可能得到永久的和平,因为自由会暴露人性中的败坏,会使有的人压迫损害其他人;由此那些邪恶的压迫他人的人必须被用强力制服。

虽然自由的代价是相当大的,自由的宝贵则是无价的。 自由使我们每一个人品尝他生命本源的意义、选择他自身的美德、搜寻他自己的真实信仰。 自由将我们每一个人所理解的领域的门豁然打开,因为在宇宙中没有比独立的、没有干扰的头脑与他人的交流更能使智慧的源泉涌流。 自由为我们每一个人开拓了通往真实自我认同与真实的爱的旅途。 自由使人懂得:每一个人都是独特的与不能替代的。" --- 安德鲁. 克莱文

"As our founders knew, embracing the idea of liberty means leaving other attractive ideas behind. You can’t be free, for instance, and all equal, because, set free, some people will excel due to talent or determination or luck. You can’t be free and have guaranteed financial security because some free enterprises will fail while others succeed. And you can’t be free and perpetually at peace because it’s in the nature of some people to dominate others and such people must often be defeated by force.

The price of liberty is great but the gifts of liberty are priceless. Liberty allows each of us to attempt his best destiny, his virtues freely chosen, his faith freely found. Liberty opens the doors of every field to our greatest understanding, because there is no force for wisdom so powerful as an unfettered and independent mind in open interchange with others. Liberty paves the pathway to the fullest realization of our identities, our lives, and our loves, each his own." --- Andrew Klavan


http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=andrew+klavan&search_type=&aq=0&oq=Andrew+Kla

Andrew Klavan: My Way Into and Out of the Left 我从左倾幻觉走向真实自由

– Interviewed by Jamie Glazov

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

Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Andrew Klavan, the author of such internationally bestselling crime novels as True Crime, filmed by Clint Eastwood, and Don’t Say A Word, filmed starring Michael Douglas. He has been nominated for the Mystery Writers of America’s Edgar Award five times and has won twice. His last novel for adults, Empire of Lies, topped Amazon.com’s thriller list. His new novel series for young adults continues in February with The Long Way Home. Andrew is a contributing editor to City Journal, the magazine of the Manhattan Institute. His essays on politics, religion, movies and literature have appeared in the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, The Washington Post, the LA Times, and elsewhere. As a screenwriter, he wrote the screenplays for 1990’s A Shock to the System, starring Michael Caine, and 2008’s One Missed Call. His Klavan on the Culture videos appear at PJTV.com. His website is AndrewKlavan.com.

FP: Andrew Klavan, welcome to Frontpage Interview.

I’d like to talk to you today about your journey into and out of the Left.

How did you at first become a member of the political faith? Tell us about the beginnings of your intellectual journey.


Klavan: Well, I was always a dissatisfied liberal. I just never knew there was anything else to be. I was born Jewish to a mother who worshipped FDR and a father who thought that any Republican victory prefigured the return of Adolf Hitler. That’s not an exaggeration: he thought Republicans were all just Hitler in disguise. So going from that family into the arts, where everyone mouths this elitist, pseudo-sophisticated left-wing bushwa without any real understanding of the underlying issues: leftism was simply the water I swam in. Conservatives were the bad guys. Everyone knew that.

FP: So how did your second thoughts begin? Tell us about your journey out of the Left.

Klavan: It was an experience that very much mirrored the pattern of the famous paradigm shift described in Thomas Kuhn’s “Structure of Scientific Revolutions.” Anomalies started to occur, things that didn’t fit into what I thought of as a “liberal” world view. The Bakke case, in which the Supreme Court supported affirmative action – that was a big one: I thought it was a clear sign that the left – my side – had signed on to racism. Feminism, political correctness, the disaster of welfare, the appeasement of the Soviet Union – I kept saying, “Well, that’s no good,” but I thought they were anomalies. I still didn’t realize there was an alternative philosophy that described the world more accurately. Then the Berlin Wall fell down – everything Reagan predicted – stupid Reagan, cowboy Reagan, dumb old movie actor Reagan – every single thing he said would happen, happened. And it finally began to dawn on me, “Oh, I get it: it’s not this and this and this that’s wrong. It’s ALL wrong.” And I started the long, difficult process of changing my mind.

FP: As you began changing your mind, what happened to your relationships? The leftist milieu does not allow dissent and will banish a heretic into “non-person” status. Did something of this nature begin happening to you? Tell us a bit about how your second thoughts affected your friendships and social life.

Klavan: A lot of friends dropped away and a lot of business opportunities disappeared. Working in Hollywood became much, much more difficult. The worst time, I think, was during the Bush/Kerry election when passions were running so terribly high. Liberals would say things to me, like, “I hope the war goes badly so Kerry wins.” When I would point out that they were essentially wishing Americans dead so that their candidate would win, they felt I was being cruel and uncivil. The left is fine with calling you racist, sexist, a pig, a Nazi – but if you point out the simple inarguable consequences of their words and actions, they feel you’ve just gone way too far!

FP: A leftist is also part of the political faith very much because of his own vision of himself being a social redeemer and there is much self-satisfaction that comes with seeing oneself in this way. Can you share a bit how you had to shed yourself of some ways you saw yourself and also what it meant to you to become someone who your dad had demonized? This must have been very difficult.

Klavan: It’s a lot like the Matrix, you know: once you take the red pill, once you see that leftist virtue is an illusion created by an ideologically driven media and academy, once you see what leftist policies have really done to black people in this country, how they’ve appeased and encouraged tyranny, destroyed cities, ruined economies, blasted cultures it’s just impossible to re-submerge yourself in the left’s self-righteous illusion. Was it difficult to have people I liked or even loved reel back in moral horror and disgust when they learned I was a conservative? Sometimes, I guess. But I’m a hard guy about stuff like that. There’s so much true love in my life – the love of God, my wife, my kids, my friends – it’s an embarrassment of riches. That hasn’t changed.

FP: What are your thoughts on the position the Left has taken in our conflict with radical Islam?

Klavan: If I were still capable of being appalled by them, I’d be appalled, but as it is… well, I don’t know how you shrug in print but picture me shrugging. So desperate are they to display their tolerance, to claim virtue and open-mindedness for themselves, so secretly ashamed and guilt-ridden and self-hating are they, I guess, that they will give aid and comfort to a philosophy that turns everything they’re supposed to stand for on its head. Anti-female, anti-gay, anti-religious liberty, anti-humanity, radical Islam is a cancer on the face of the earth. Ignoring it, pretending it isn’t there, moral equivalence, relativism – all the various forms of false piety in which the left specializes – are as helpful with radical Islam as they are with other cancers. It’s like having your doctor say, “Yes, there’s a spot on your x-ray, but let’s not do anything about it, in case we make it angry or seem biased!” Academics, entertainers, wealthy elites like Michael Moore who think Islamists are going to like them, spare them and their limousines and their millions, because they’re such ever-so-good people… well, they’re like the intellectuals who lined the streets of Vienna to welcome Hitler. The next day, they were gone.

FP: What is it in your character that made it impossible for you to remain a leftist?

Klavan: I think that question should be answered by whoever delivers my eulogy. Personally, I’m hoping he uses phrases like “an undying love of truth,” and “an uncompromising commitment to authenticity.” Then a little something about my sparkling smile, my lambent wit and my kindness to widows and orphans. Some praise for my sexual prowess wouldn’t go amiss. But perhaps I’ve gotten off the subject.

FP: You mentioned that leftists are “secretly ashamed and guilt-ridden and self-hating.” Can you expand a bit on this? What is it, in the end, that is at the core of the leftist mindset and belief system?

Klavan: Shame and guilt and self-hatred are universal. Whether you chalk it up to original sin or to Oedipus or call it Jewish guilt or Catholic guilt or white guilt or black guilt, every single one of us knows he is not the person he was made to be. There are honest ways to confront that. You can kneel before God and pray for forgiveness and live in the joy of his love. Or you can drink heavily and make sardonic remarks until you destroy everyone you care about and then keel over dead – that’s honest too. But what a lot of people do is try to escape their sense of shame dishonestly by constructing elaborate moral frameworks that allow them to parade their virtue and their lavish repentance without any real inconvenience to themselves while simultaneously indulging in self-righteousness by condemning others for their impenitent evil. That’s the bad version of religion – the sort of religion Jesus came to dismantle. And that’s exactly the sort of religion leftism is: an elaborate system for hiding shame behind a cheap mask of virtue. That’s why they demonize any opposition. To them, we’re not just disagreeing with them, we’re threatening to tear off the mask of their virtue and reveal them to themselves. Which, without God or sufficient whiskey, would be unbearable.

FP: You mentioned your love of God. Is your faith connected to, or influence, your view of the limitations of the leftist vision? How if so?

Klavan: I was an atheist and an agnostic for a long time. Finding God, or perhaps accepting the God I always knew was there, was transformative in too many ways to describe. But one of the most important things God did was make a realist of me. There’s a great joke for you. The atheists preen themselves on their realism and accuse the faithful of wishful thinking, but for me, God freed me to develop a full, honorable and tragic sense of life, to perceive both the nobility and the sinfulness of every individual, and to understand why no system will make us good or fair but that there are systems that can keep us free so that we can choose whether or not to be good or fair. That understanding – plus a sense of peace in the face of the left’s slavering insults and hatred – were gifts of God to me and it turns out they’re very helpful in maintaining my conservatism.

FP: Radical Islam is gaining much strength on myriad realms and the Left has disabled us from even being able to name the enemy, let alone fight him properly. Are you optimistic or pessimistic that our civilization has the will and capacity to defend itself?

Klavan: Radical Islam is sort of like an opportunistic virus, you know. If it’s the final cause of the West’s death, it will only be because we weakened ourselves so badly that we gave it a chance to take hold. And listen, death comes eventually to us all, right? Countries die, civilizations die, nothing made by man’s hands lasts forever. Conservatives are sort of like the doctors who are trying to keep America alive as long as we can and the question is: how long? My own feeling is that the country right now is in some danger from radical Islam, but that the real and present and terrible danger is to our republic, our system of individual liberty under limited government – and that danger comes from within. Bread and circuses – or as we call them today, entitlements and the mainstream media – are being employed to poison our will and moral seriousness. I foresee many years of American power yet to come, maybe more American power than ever before – but will it be republican power, the power of a free people over themselves, or will it be imperial power, the bloated strength of a slave state on the march? We’ll see.

FP: You mentioned Michael Moore. Who are some leftists that you think are especially pathetic sad cases?

Klavan: Al Gore is quite hilarious. Global warming! I love that. I seriously think the man had a nervous breakdown and decided to parlay it into an industry. Why go nuts for free when you can make a fortune at it? Going around in his fume-spewing jets preaching to us about our carbon footprints, he reminds me of some ancient Pope with mistresses and catamites and palaces condemning the sinfulness of the poor. Then there’s that knucklehead Evan Thomas. He’s the guy who practically lynched the Duke University Boys on the cover of Newsweek and then said, “Oh, we had the narrative right we just got the facts wrong.” In my business – writing novels – you can get the narrative right and the facts wrong. In his business, the facts are the narrative. He’s lucky there’s a Keith Olbermann, or he’d be the poster boy for our corrupt idiot news media.

FP: Who do you admire in our political theater today in terms of warriors for freedom?

Klavan: Rudy Giuliani is a great man in terms of his accomplishments but he may have played out his political string. We have all the good writers and thinkers, every single one: Horowitz, Krauthammer, Fouad Ajami, Jonah Goldberg, Mark Steyn, on and on - who has the left got to touch the hems of their garments? Our entertainer-slash-commentators are great. El Rush-bo is a radio genius. Coulter, Beck, Hannity. It makes me crazy the way right wingers are always nervously edging away from them, while the left embraces their John Stewarts and Michael Moores. Andrew Breitbart is terrific; he’s building an empire of truth to defeat the msm’s empire of lies – and he’ll do it too. And we’ve got some good pols, especially the babes: Michelle Bachman, Sarah Palin, Liz Cheney. What we’re missing is a towering figure to take the presidential helm but, you know, cometh the hour, cometh the man. And the hour is sure enough cometh-ing.

FP: Were you always a man of humor? Why humor to fight our enemies and fight for the truth? What is especially meaningful and powerful about humor? Interestingly enough, humor is not something that the Left and radical Islam particularly excel in, to say the least.

Klavan: LOL, no, the funniest Muslim right now is Achmed the Dead Terrorist, that Jeff Dunham puppet who’s always screaming, “I’ll kill you!” But you know, my Dad was a radio comedian so I guess I inherited a certain sense of hilarity. But it’s not a weapon to me. I mean, in comedians, humor is frequently an expression of anger or hostility. In me, it’s something different. I know this sounds silly when you say it flat-out, but the truth is: I’m very fond of the human race. Too fond of them, I sometimes think. And when you see how small we are, how brief our lives are, what gifts of creation these fingersnaps of consciousness are in God’s great scheme… and then you see what we do to one another: the holocausts and the little cruelties, the elaborate lies and self-deceptions… gassing a child to death because his name ends in itz instead of er, betraying and abusing the spouses who love us, hurting our own kids, all the ways we spend our little moment when we could be loving each other and making funny faces…. well, it’s absurd, isn’t it? And the absurdity either makes your heart explode with pity, or you have to laugh. Or both. For me, it’s both.

FP: Andrew Klavan, thank you for joining us. It was an honor to speak with you.

We’d like to remind our readers that Andrew Klavan’s latest novel for adults is Empire of Lies. Get it now!

Wednesday, December 9, 2009

Leading Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo faces subversion case 刘晓波将上非法法庭受审

Pro-democracy activists hold pictures of Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo outside the US Consulate General in Hong Kong in this October 23 file photo.
Kin Cheun/AP/File

陈凯一语:

中国从不是个国家(Nation)。 中国只是一个非法党政(Party-State)。 中国的政府并没有政府职能;它只是一个中共的工具。 中国要进化到正常国度或有一个正常政府,其前提是共产政权的灭亡。 相信中共可以变好只说明相信者的变态与幻觉心理。 --- 陈凯

China is not a nation. China is a Party-State. The Chinese government has none of the normal functions of a normal government. The Chinese government is only a tool, like everything else in China, of the Chinese Communist Party. If China is to develop into a normal Nation-State with a normal government performing normal civic functions, the downfall of the Chinese Communist Party is a must. To believe that a criminal Party-State under the Chinese Communist Party somehow can transform itself to be a normal Nation-State only shows the pathological perversion and psychotic illusion of the believers. --- Kai Chen


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

www.kaichenblog.blogspot.com

Leading Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo faces subversion case 刘晓波将上非法法庭受审

Police have presented a subversion case against prominent Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo, raising the likelihood that he will face trial and then prison. The move furthers China's crackdown on democracy activists.


By Peter Ford | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

from the December 9, 2009 edition

Beijing - Police investigators have presented prosecutors with a subversion case against China's most prominent dissident, lawyers for the activist, Liu Xiaobo, said on Wednesday. The move makes it more likely that Mr. Liu will be sent to prison, despite widespread international protests since he was detained without charge a year ago, human rights defenders predicted.

"This significantly reduces Liu's chance of being released," says Nicolas Bequelin, a China analyst with Human Rights Watch in Hong Kong. "It indicates that the decision to bring him to trial has been taken by higher-ups."

Liu's fate also indicates that "the crackdown on human rights defenders … that started in the lead-up to the Beijing Olympics remains at a heightened level," says Roseanne Rife, Amnesty International's deputy program director for Asia. "The danger is now that it has become standard procedure."

Liu, a literary critic and essayist, was detained on Dec. 8 last year, apparently for his role in drafting "Charter 08," a call for greater democracy in China. The charter, signed by 300 people, was published on the Internet two days later, to mark the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It has since attracted more than 8,000 signatures.

Accused of "inciting subversion of state power," Liu was held in a secret location for six months before being formally arrested and transferred to Beijing's Detention Center No.1 last June. Police extended their investigation three times, the legal limit under Chinese law.

Third time in jail

This is the third time Liu, an outspoken critic of the Chinese regime, has been jailed. He spent two years in prison for his role during the Tiananmen Square protests in 1989, and three years in a "reeducation through labor" camp for challenging one-party rule in Web postings.

The prosecutor must now decide whether to drop the case, refer it back to the police for further investigation, or bring it to court.

He will "most likely" choose the third option, Liu's lawyer, Shang Baojun says, although Chinese law allows for up to six months of procedural delays.

If Liu is brought before a judge, "it is impossible that he will not be convicted," argues Mr. Bequelin. "His arrest was political, his prosecution will be political, and the outcome will be political," he charges. "The legal procedures are just a pipeline through which the case is processed, but the outcome is decided elsewhere."

Ignoring international pressure

The decision by Chinese authorities to go forward with the case defies international condemnation of their bid to brand pro-democracy activists as subversives. Liu's arrest drew protests from leading authors around the world, including Salman Rushdie, Umberto Eco, and Wole Soyinka.

Until the prosecutor makes his decision, Liu's fate is not sealed, says Bequelin. "But time is running out," he says.

"I don't know whether international pressure helps," says Liu's lawyer, Mr. Shang. "But we cannot do nothing."

Tuesday, December 8, 2009

I came to America longing for freedom and now I'm getting Obama's 'revolution' 我来美国寻求自由,美国(奥巴马)今天对自由革命


www.kaichenblog.blogspot.com

陈凯一语: Kai Chen's Words:

American Revolution was against enslavement of any tyrannical entity upon human beings. Now America's (Obama's) revolution is against freedom itself (and for the enslavement of human being under tyranny of government). I must be having a nightmare. Maybe next time I have to leave to the moon for freedom. --- Kai Chen

那夫罗佐夫与我对今天的美国深有同感: 美国革命是要将人从专制压迫中自由、解放出来。 但今天的所谓美国(奥巴马)革命是要将人再至于政府的奴役之下再成为奴隶。 这真是一场噩梦。 如果美国不能主导世界自由的潮流而被专制腐蚀成为懒人懦夫的奴才国度,像我与那夫罗佐夫这样来美寻求自由的人真的要到月球上去找自由了。 --- 陈凯


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

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2009/l.asp

Friday, August 21, 2009

I came to America longing for freedom and now I'm getting Obama's 'revolution' 我来美国寻求自由,美国(奥巴马)今天对自由革命

(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).

By way of propaganda, in the early 1970s, the "Soviet Union" permitted several thousand of its inhabitants to emigrate ("You see how free our country is? Here is the emigration!").

I emigrated (with my family) to the U.S.A. because this is the most powerful of the free countries and hence most capable of survival, defending freedom anywhere in the world.

As far as freedom in the United States is concerned, I am not disappointed. Since the day of my arrival, I have been writing and publishing what I have wanted to. But will the U.S.A. be able to survive and defend freedom anywhere in the world?

America achieved Independence as a result of the war with England. The latter stopped the war, since in the 18th century it was impossible to deliver enough timely supplies to the British army across the Atlantic during the war. Ironically, the Atlantic and the Pacific have defended the U.S.A. in the 19th and 20th centuries as well.

Canada is not independent-it is part of the Commonwealth of Nations. But it is as free as the United States.

I still remember my surprise when I saw the engravings and cartoons of America at the time of its struggle for independence, with this inscription in the middle of them: "The American Revolution". So it was a revolution! Against a British autocracy? So Britain remains a pre-revolutionary autocracy!

Here is a text from the Britannica article about how a British official named Winston Churchill, who described Nazi Germany as a mortal danger without any compromise or reservation. Here is my Britannica article (vol. 5, 750):

On May 10, 1940, with the news of the German invasion of the Low Countries, [Neville] Chamberlain [the Prime Minister], resigned . . . Chamberlain advised the king to call Churchill to be prime minister.

Possibly, this appointment of Churchill influenced Hitler in his decision to switch his war from Western Europe to the invasion of Stalin's Russia (he was routed and committed suicide).

In the U.S.A., the president is elected by a majority of all psychiatrically normal adults who want to vote for him. Thus, President Obama was elected possibly because those who favored his healthcare program constituted sufficiently many extra voters for him (while my neighbor called it scornfully "socialism").

In any case, possibly none of those who voted for Obama and least of all Obama himself have spoken about the "People's Republic of China" the way Churchill spoke about "National-Socialist Germany."

So instead of the American Churchill of today to be in charge of the survival of the U.S.A., elected was a young man who called the U.S.A. a "partner" of the "People's Republic of China," which killed several times more people without any legal process than did Hitler's "National-Socialist Germany."

The expected Obama's "revolution," evidently to change the Constitution, possibly aims ultimately at absolutism inside the U.S.A. with him as the permanent dictator, subservient to the "People's Republic of China."

Here is another important fact in the survival of a country versus its non-survival or death:

I do not know of a single American who has heard of Chi Haotian, the Minister of National Defense of China up to 2003 (he is now 80 years old), who has read his explanations as to why China should annihilate the U.S.A. and lead the world before the U.S.A. tries (of which Chi was convinced) to annihilate the People's Republic of China.

What about the U.S. universities, which produce more professors and other degreed graduates per one million inhabitants than the universities of any other country?

Way back in 1987, Allan Bloom, a "professor of social thought" of the University of Chicago, published a 392-page book entitled The Closing of the American Mind and subtitled How Higher Education Has Failed Democracy and Impoverished the Souls of Today's Students.

My question is: If this is what higher education in the U.S.A. has been doing, how is Allan Bloom or his books or his University of Chicago different and why?

Social thought or any other thought may be a thought of a person of genius or a cliché.

My uncle Yakov Mints used to publish in Russian and in French a magazine entitled Genius and Insanity. According to the studies in the magazine, no one except another genius can tell the difference between genius and insanity, since both may be equally beyond the understanding of anyone except another genius. Let us recall Einstein (1879-1955). Who understood his thought, when he expressed it, that there is no time in general, since every point of space has its own time?

It may also be relevant to note that it was Einstein who drew the attention of President Roosevelt in 1939 to the probability of the production of nuclear bombs by Nazi Germany.

What if Hitler was smart enough first to produce (secretly) atom bombs and then attack England, the U.S.A., and Russia. They would have surrendered as did Japan to the U.S.A. after the latter's nuclear strike.

But how has Allan Bloom contributed to the "opening of the American mind" and has otherwise been the opposite of today's American "higher education" he criticizes on the 392 pages of his book? Displayed on the first (unnumbered) front matter page are the titles of his own four books. The first book is Plato's Republic (translation and editing), the second book is the translation and editing of Politics and the Arts: Rousseau's Letter to d'Alembert; the third book is the translation and editing of Rousseau's Emile, and the fourth, Shakespeare's Politics. Is this not "academic education" at its most conventional, trite, and belated?

Predictably, I have on my shelves The Republic of Plato, translated by Francis Cornford (Trinity College, Cambridge), and published by the Oxford Universitiy Press in 1941, 1945, and 1973. So what should a reader like me do? To read Allan Bloom's translation, as superior to Cornford's? What if I found Plato's book of little interest despite all the worship of him in Western "academic education" for many centuries?

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

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

Monday, December 7, 2009

Why so serious about China? 必须高度警惕中共国对自由世界的威胁


www.kaichenblog.blogspot.com

陈凯一语: Kai Chen's Words:

Lev Navrozov对以美国为首的自由世界的忠告/警讯必须被高度重视。 中共国对自由世界的威胁不光是精神/灵魂上的,也是生理/物理上的。 迟浩田的秘密报告证实了这个真实的威胁。 --- 陈凯

Lev Navrozov's warning to America and the Free World must be highly regarded as realistic. China's threat to America and the Free World not only comes from its intention to assimilate and to corrupt its moral/spiritual foundation, but to annihilate/conquer it physically. General Chi Haotian's secret speech to the Chinese military proves such diabolical scheme indeed exists. --- Kai Chen

Link to Chi Haotian's speech 迟浩田讲话链锁:


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

Thursday, November 19, 2009

Why so serious about China? 必须高度警惕中共国对自由世界的威胁

Lev Navrozov

(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.)

China can train her population (at present 1.3 billion people), with the exception of little children and invalids, into developers and users of the latest weapons. Thus China will have the global military power for the global aggressions, one of which Gen. Chi exemplified as follows: from one-third to two-thirds of Americans will be put to death, their houses and other property transferred to the new Chinese settlers as to the superior race, while one-thrid of former Americans will be left alive to be their servants.

So the global aggressions of the owners of the slave state of China will be at the same time giant robberies for their slaves to make them loyal to their owners.

What should the free countries do?

1. They must create an allied global army (AGA), led by a single allied command with its staff. In this way, the U.S. president will be confined to domestic concerns, just as will be the leaders of other AGA nations, but they will be subordinate at the global military level to the AGA command.

2. The staff of the AGA must have its research department and information department (including broadcasting in Chinese and cooperating with Chinese dissident publications).

3. Only in the e-mails of my readers do I find the adequate horror of the “China danger.” Otherwise I could spend in the United States months, with a TV set always turned on the news and never learn that China does exist, except in connection with U.S. President Obama’s visit to China. Surely the information media of the AGA will be more concerned with China than with Iraq or Afghanistan or terrorists.

4. A friend of mine who lived in Paris on the eve of the Nazi invasion told me that the French perceived Hitler as a clown. How could he challenge the nation of Napoleon? In World War I France had defeated Germany in four years. But in World War II, France was routed by Hitler in six weeks, despite 10 British divisions in France. The free countries should abandon this mood of self-congratulatory military superiority.

5. The Westerners selling or giving to the slave state of China whatever helps her to grow its global military might must be stopped in their so-far undeterred treason.

A possible question is, Why am I, an immigrant from Russia, a greater worrier about the survival of the United States than many native-born Americans?

It is not in search of wealth that I and my family immigrated in 1972 (the first such Soviet permission since the early 1920s). In Russia, my wife, and our son (who was educated at home) and I studied English as the major language of freedom.

One consequence was that I became the first (and the last?) Russian able to translate classical Russian literature into English, and the Moscow Publishing House of Literature in Foreign Languages sold my translations abroad and paid me handsomely by Soviet standards.

My wife was helping me, and near Moscow we bought a three-storied stone villa, with 10 balconies and terraces, so that we could receive foreigners as their social equals.

Fantastically, in the late 1960s, the owners of Soviet Russia decided to astonish the West with freedom in their slave state and permitted several hundred of their subjects to emigrate for the first time since the early 1920s (and possibly for the last time!).

Thus we came to America. Why America?

My life in Russia contained an overdose of fear that freedom would be annihilated in the West as it had been in Russia. But America was one of the biggest and militarily the strongest of the free countries. And it was her that I should help to survive first and foremost with my knowledge of the slave state countries like Stalin’s Russia and of the free countries like the United States.

I foresaw what General Chi Haotian of China proclaimed since he became the minister of national defense in 1993, except that he foresaw the annihilation of the United States as the most joyous event (in the creation of the world slave state of China), while I as the most horrible disaster in human history.

At first my columns and General Chi’s speeches were perceived by American “top experts on China” with equal scorn, but since Gen. Chi remains a top general of China despite his age (he is 80 years old) and since I relied only on statistics like China’s output of steel, almost equal to half of that of all other countries (including the United States) put together, the number and intensity of e-mails in support of my columns have been growing in 2009.

The goal, of course, is to make this comprehension of the gravity of the geostrategic situation of today most urgent, and I even suggested to turn to cinematography to make a film to create a mass audience of those concerned about the gruesome geostrategic reality of today, for which purpose I have created a not-for-profit organization Center for the Survival of Western Democracies, Inc., with a New York bank account for tax-exempt donations to create such a film.

In conclusion, let me note that since our arrival to the United States, I have been indifferent to wealth — mine and my wife’s reward and happiness are to save America and hence other free countries from what Chi has so colorfully described.

To defend the United States and other free countries against the People’s Republic of China is a no easy task.

For example, the U.S. presidents are elected by direct vote of all psychiatrically normal adults. Even in the United States, George Washington was not elected by such “direct vote.”

As a result of this vote, President Obama, right after his election, declared the United States, himself, and China to be “partners.”

Now he had been visiting his “partner.”

For George W. Bush, his predecessor, this mortally dangerous China hardly existed.

Saturday, December 5, 2009

A Letter to a Chinese, any Chinese 给中国人的一封信-任何中国人

www.kaichenblog.blogspot.com

陈凯一语: Kai Chen's Words:

81岁的Lev Navrozov来自前苏联。 他的清晰与中肯的对中国专制制度的分析与推断在“给每一个中国人的一封信”中以一个在专制下生活过的人的诚恳坦率地展现出来。 每一个中国人都应在读过这封信后深深地反思中国的专制制度与专制文化心态。 --- 陈凯

81 year old Lev Navrozov came to America from the former USSR in 1972. In this letter to every Chinese on the planet earth, he candidly expresses his view on China and the Chinese despotism. I hope everyone of us reflects deeply on his wise and sincere message. And all of us will benefit from it. --- Kai Chen



http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2009/l.asp

A Letter to a Chinese, any Chinese 给中国人的一封信-任何中国人

By Lev Navrozov

SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM

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

January 16, 2005

I don't know who you are — I am addressing any Chinese man or woman. Nor am I concerned with your sociopolitical views.
我不知道你是谁。 我只想与任何的一个中国男女说句话,不论你的社会倾向与政治观点如何。

Suppose you believe that the present form of government in China is the best possible for the country and that a vast majority of the Chinese people share your belief. So its present form of government will remain in China, and democracy or constitutionalism will remain in the West, and most Chinese and most Westerners will live happily in peace and friendship.

Please tell me how you want me to call the present form of government in China. Dictatorship was a good word in the 19th century, but in the 20th it turned into a curse, though Marx, Lenin, and Mao spoke positively of the “dictatorship of the proletariat.” Absolutism? Kung, the great Chinese sociopolitical thinker who lived about 25 centuries ago, advocated absolutism more convincingly than did the West European thinkers such as Thomas Hobbes. But you will perhaps reject the term “absolutism” as well.

Perhaps, “socialism,” the official term of Marx, Lenin, and Mao, will do?

So Westerners will flourish under whatever they call their form of government in the West, and you under whatever you call your form of government in China. Here I could put a fullstop in this letter after my best wishes for the Western New Year — and the Chinese New Year, which comes later, as I know because I celebrate annually the Chinese New Year as well.

But there is one historical detail.

The form of government called democracy, or constitutionalism, is immune to an easy overthrow because the U.S. president, for example, is “overthrown” every 4 or 8 years, while the U.S. Congress is “overthrown” all the time, senator after senator and representative after representative. On the other hand, the form of government called dictatorship or absolutism or “socialism” is a pyramid standing on its apex, and the entire pyramid collapses, as happened when Gorbachev was removed from the apex of the pyramid of dictatorship in Russia in 1991. The Soviet pyramid of dictatorship had existed since 1917, and it had been protected for 73 years by the armed forces, the police, and the secret police. There was no crash, roar, thunder, or rattle. The pyramid growing up from strength to strength for 73 years suddenly dissolved like a wisp of smoke, and Gorbachev became a nobody, lecturing in the West because the West has never understood that he reversed Stalin's outdated territorial expansion in order to concentrate on the development of post-nuclear superweapons, deciding the destiny of the world, just as nuclear weapons in 1945 decided the destiny of Japan despite its vast territorial expansion.

What happened in Russia in 1991 to provoke the dissolution of the globally powerful dictatorship? An earthquake? No! A famine? No! The NATO bombing of Moscow for 78 days? No!

Gorbachev had been developing post-nuclear superweapons to rule the world, and predicted in his speeches that “life will become meaningful for all mankind for the first time in history.” Had he obtained post-nuclear superweapons, able to destroy or neutralize the Western (and Chinese) means of nuclear retaliation, he would have become the sovereign of the world. As it is, I am asked: “Is he alive?”

The moral is that a dictatorship, absolutism, “socialism” can establish world domination and may dissolve like a wisp of smoke.
人性的道德属性决定了专制极权、社会主义可能在某个时刻霸权世界,但它也会在一瞬间烟消云散。

So, why did the globally powerful Soviet empire, preparing for world domination by means of post-nuclear superweapons, suddenly dissolve like a wisp of smoke?

In 1918 the Soviet “proletarian state,” establishing “socialism” to establish “communism,” was a world fashion. Communist parties sprang up in all countries. Hungary became Soviet, and Germany was expected to become such. Later, Roosevelt's spouse, the First Lady, went to Soviet Russia and then published a book that could move Stalin to tears of gratitude. Roosevelt's ambassador in Moscow praised Stalin to the skies, as did Walter Duranty, the Moscow correspondent of the New York Times in the 1920s. At one time one quarter of voters voted Communist in France, and one third in Italy.

How to save the democratic West? Way back in 1918 Winston Churchill began to organize the invasion of Russia to destroy “the Bolshevism bacillus,” infecting, subverting, Sovietizing the West.

But fashions come and go. As of 1989, the very word “communism” had disappeared from public pronouncements. Even China doesn't call itself “communist” internationally and is not called “communist” by the West officially. The official West applies to China only Western terms, such as “president” or “government,” creating the false impression that the legacy of Marx, Lenin, and Mao does not exist in China. West university “experts” on China mislead the public by announcing that this legacy is going away, and democracy will appear in China ere long. They regard the permission of private enterprise as a sign of coming democracy though private enterprise existed in ancient Eastern tyrannies for millennia, Lenin permitted private enterprise in 1921, and Hitler relied on it throughout his rule.

As a translator into English I lived in Moscow among those who had emigrated from the United States and other English-speaking countries in Stalin's Russia and became translators into English. Has a single Westerner emigrated in the last 55 years to post-1949 China? Is there a single Westerner who is a Communist on the pattern of the Chinese Communist Party or at least a “fellow traveler”?

On the other hand, there has appeared “the democracy bacillus”: rising on Tiananmen Square was a huge replica of the Statue of Liberty. You see? The “supreme leaders of China” have to destroy “the democracy bacillus” or their form of government will dissolve like a wisp of smoke, as did the globally powerful Soviet form of government in 1991.

Now, my dear Chinese friend: as a disciple of great Kung you may despise democracy. But a fashion is a fashion. In vain did the sophisticates tell the Hungarians in 1918 that the Soviet “proletarian state,” its “socialism,” developing into “communism,” and the rest of it is absurd nonsense. The Hungarians established “a bolshevist dictatorship of the proletariat,” and only a foreign invasion destroyed it in 1920.

As a result of the Tiananmen movement, the powerful empire of China could dissolve like a wisp of smoke. This is why “the supreme leaders” of China have been developing since 1986 post-nuclear superweapons: to destroy “the democracy bacillus” not only in China, but in the West as well.
因为对六四天安门运动所代表的价值的恐惧与仇恨,奴役制的“中华帝国”意识到它有可能在一瞬间烟消云散。 这就是为什么中共最高领导人在1986年以后全力发展“核时代后超级武器”的原因:去在全世界消灭“民主的传媒体”- 不光去消灭中国的民主萌芽,还要消灭西方的民主基地。

Tiananmen Square could have been encircled by the police and “security police” to prevent newcomers, water, and food from getting into the Square, and in several days the Square would have been empty. But that would not have been enough to prevent another epidemic as a result of infection by “the democracy bacillus.” So they moved in mechanized armor against unarmed dissidents.

Or take Taiwan. I do not believe that China cannot exist without Taiwan as its dependency. The “supreme leaders” of China have been trying to make Taiwan their dependency because it is another source of the “democracy bacillus” — of subversion by the very fact of its independent democratic existence. Well, the West is a vast trans-Atlantic Tiananmen Square or Taiwan, is it not?
其实,西方(民主宪政)就是一个在大洋彼岸“天安门六四精神”,就是又一个“台湾民主宪政”,不是吗?

You see, my dear Chinese friend? It is impossible to have dictatorship-absolutism-“socialism” and democracy-constitutionalism living in peace and friendship in the same globalized world: democracy-constitutionalism has become globally fashionable and subverts by its very existence dictatorship-absolutism-“socialism.”
你想想,我亲爱的中国朋友: 专制独裁、极权主义、社会主义是不可能与民主宪政和平共处的。 民主宪政现在主导世界并以她的存在本身威胁着世界上所有的专制独裁、极权主义、社会主义。

The geostrategically absurd wars on Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, and Iraq or other escapades of the West do not threaten “the supreme leaders' power” in China. What threatens it is the fact of existence of the fashionable democracy-constitutionalism, of “the democracy bacillus” in the West, which can be dealt with — not with mechanized armor as was the Tiananmen Square gathering, but with post-nuclear superweapons such as nano assemblers.

* * * * *
For more information about Drexler's Foresight Institute and its lobbying in Congress, see www.foresight.org

To learn more about the Chris Phoenix report, suggesting a “nano Manhattan Project,” go to crnano.org.

For information about the Center for the Survival of Western Democracies, Inc., including how you can help, please e-mail me at navlev@cloud9.net.

The link to my book online is www.levnavrozov.com. You can also request our 1c to send you by e-mail my outline of my book.

It is my pleasant duty to express gratitude to the Rev. Alan Freed, a Lutheran pastor by occupation before his retirement and a thinker by vocation, for his help in the writing of this column.

Lev Navrozov's (navlev@cloud9.net] new book is available on-line at www.levnavrozov.com. To request an outline of the book, send an e-mail to 1c.

Friday, December 4, 2009

Chairman O: America's 'Great Leap Forward' 奥巴马的美国“大跃进”

www.kaichenblog.blogspot.com

陈凯一语: Kai Chen's Words:

个人魅力(斯大林、希特勒、毛泽东)与个人崇拜(抛弃对神的崇拜)已被历史证明是社会走向灾难的开始。 人们抛弃了个体自由与选择带来的个体责任,把自己抛向各形各色的“救世主”。 中国的悲剧也有可能在美国重演。 --- 陈凯

Personal charisma with the subsequent personal cult has proven time again as the essential ingredient for unimaginable human disasters. People start to cast away their own individual freedom/liberty, along with it, their own individual responsibility to make choices. Various kinds of "World Saviors" emerge to replace God who endows freedom in human lives. China's tragedy of the "Great Leap Forward" and "Cultural Revolution" may have a chance to repeat itself, this time in America. --- Kai Chen


Friday, December 4, 2009

Chairman O: America's 'Great Leap Forward' 奥巴马的美国“大跃进”

By Nancy Morgan, RightBias.com

When Barack Obama was campaigning for president in 2007, his backers frequently compared him to former president John F. Kennedy. After a year in office, however, President Obama's words and actions align more closely with China's despotic Chairman Mao than with JFK's.

When Mao Tse Tung conquered China in 1949, his secret goal was to dominate the world. When Obama was elected President, many started referring to him as President of the World. Both Obama and Mao had carte blanche to set out a path of radical change.

As part of his strategy, Mao informed his top echelon, "There has to be a personality cult...it is absolutely necessary." [ Mao: The Unknown Story by Jung Chang and Jon Halliday] With the aid of the state media, Mao crafted an iconic image of himself as the savior of the common man. Propaganda was everywhere — including the fields where workers could listen to messages from Mao as they worked. Sound familiar?

In 1958, Mao kicked off what he called The Great Leap Forward, an extraordinarily creative intervention in China's economic development. Mao planned to abolish wages and put society on a non-cash basis. He then set about abolishing private property.

The ownership of tools, animals, and other means of production were taken over by the state — in the name of the people. Just as the ownership of the auto, banking and insurance industries of today have been taken over by our government.

Chairman Mao, in the name of the people, also took over China's health care. The 'state' determined who would receive this essential service. The elderly were moved into "houses of happiness" so that they could be looked after — by the state. Much like the proposed government takeover of America's health care today.

Chairman Mao's government also plunged the country into a deep debt by drastically increasing spending on the development of heavy industry. But the state-sponsored industry that developed was not only non-productive, it ended up wasting money and resources on a massive scale without producing anything of value. Much like the bloated government behemoth Obama's policies are producing today.

Mao, through a cult of personality and firm control of the levers of government, had the ability to impose his own version of reality on China. Just as Obama has today.

Mao believed that collectivizing agriculture would lead to a new 'utopia.' Obama's campaign promise of 'equality' for all Americans is the modern vision of Mao's utopia. Which, by the way, not only failed, but failed spectacularly.

One year after Mao launched China's Great Leap Forward, things in China started to go wrong. Politics increasingly took precedence over commonsense. Mao's utopian dream turned into a nightmare as the central leadership grew increasingly out of touch with reality.

By the spring of 1959, in theory China was awash in grain. In reality, it was not. Rural communal mess halls that had been handing out free food, ran out of food. China's grain reserves were exhausted and the famine began.

Scholars have estimated that somewhere between 16.5 million and 40 million people died before Mao's experiment came to an end in 1961, making the Great Leap famine the largest in world history. Even Mao himself was forced to acknowledge that he had been wrong. Oops.

By late 1960, private ownership of land was reinstated and a modicum of capitalism was re-introduced. Peasants were finally given incentives to produce as much spare food as was possible by allowing them to sell their excess on the open market. Socialism had failed, yet again.

Chairman Mao never had to pay the price for his failed social engineering. The Chinese people paid it for him. Leaving Mao free to regroup, repair his image, and emerge back on the national scene in 1966 with yet another bold plan. The cultural revolution — which resulted in yet another failed social experiment and untold human suffering. The beat goes on.

The similarities between Chairman Mao and President Obama are too numerous to ignore. Like Obama, Mao's philosophy of how to 'change' China was clear from the outset. "...the country must be...destroyed and then reformed." "People like me long for the destruction because when the old universe is destroyed, a new universe will be formed. Isn't that better?" Quick — whose philosophy is that — Mao, or Obama's buddy Bill Ayers and numerous Obama appointed czars? Answer: Both.

All of Obama's actions as president to date reflect the same mindset — the destruction of traditional values, the unwillingness to learn from history, the utter reliance on theory instead of reality. And the belief that man takes precedence over God and thus has the ability to shape reality according to man's whim.

Hubris and a charismatic personality allowed both Mao and Obama the freedom to implement costly social and economic 'change.' Change which is not change at all, but another futile attempt to revive the failed model of socialism.

Like Mao, Obama will most likely never be held to account when the socialist, big government policies he has championed fail. And fail they must. History shows us that. The American people will, once again, be forced to pay the very real price for Obama's naive attempt to prove socialism is a workable theory, as long as its Obama's version.

Which Is Stronger Militarily: A Free Country or a Slave State? 军事上专制国家强大还是自由国家强大?

那夫罗佐夫 引言: Words from Navrozov:

What is tragic is that I, an American since 1972, have never heard any top official or an officer explaining how to defend the United States against a “developed” China, and I have never heard that someone (a U.S. president?) has even tried to imagine how this can be done. --- Lev Navrozov

悲剧性的是:自从我在1972年成为一个美国人后,从来没有从美国的官方人士们听到过如何抵御一个发达强大的专制中国,也从来没有一个美国总统想像过一个发达强大的专制中国对美国的威胁并因此有所准备。 --- 那夫罗佐夫


www.kaichenblog.blogspot.com

Which Is Stronger Militarily: A Free Country or a Slave State? 军事上专制国家强大还是自由国家强大?



Thursday, November 12, 2009 8:42 AM

By: Lev Navrozov

Before the origin of Stalin’s Russia and Hitler’s Germany, all countries were divided into “developed,” that is, developed industrially (read: scientifically and technologically), and “backward,” that is, not developed industrially, but engaged in farming, ranching, and forestry, often not essentially different from what they were thousands of years ago.

Stalin’s Russia and Hitler’s Germany were changing this view. Germany was a Western country, once greatly respected for its music and philosophy. Yet it turned into an aggressive slave state, partly due to the Versailles Treaty, blaming exclusively Germany for World War I and making it virtually defenseless against Stalin’s Russia.

In 1917, Russia was considered a backward country: its annual output of steel was three million tons. But Stalin “put it through industrialization,” as a result of which its steel output surpassed that of the United States, and in World War II Stalin routed Hitler, who committed suicide.

A large population, as in China, was regarded in the West as a sign of backwardness: Britain routed China twice in the 19th century and forced it to abolish the prohibition to buy opium, while in the 20th century Japan was carrying out its successful conquest of China until Japan was defeated in World War II and surrendered after the United States “dropped atom bombs” on two industrial cities of Japan.

Today it can be said that the size of a country’s population is a measure of its possible military might. If this country is a slave state, its owners can transform (as Stalin had done by 1941, when Hitler invaded Stalin’s Russia) its hitherto non-industrial population into producers and users of modern weapons more quickly than a free country.

(1) Hence the first military advantage of China as a slave state. Its population of 1.331 billion, converted, at a low cost, into low-paid producers and users of modern weapons, will make it the world’s most powerful country.

General Chi Haotian’s projections of how his China will conquer first the United States and then all the other countries are not only propaganda to inspire Chinese for World War III, but also are realistic predictions. Unrealistic is the United States, whose presidents have been refusing to see a sinister present and an entirely possible future which General Chi Haotian has been describing at least from the year 2000 to 2009.

Such is an advantage of China as a slave state, which once was dismissed, owing to its huge agricultural population, as a “backward country.”

(2) The top owner of the slave state and his subordinates are interested in war of aggression, since all the property acquired thereby, which they will desire, will be THEIR property, and the war will be THEIR war. The defeat in war may result in their being executed by the victors. Recall the trial of the top Nazi officials after they were defeated in World War II, and Hitler had escaped the trial because he had committed suicide.

(3) As for the rank-and-file population, in a free country a certain part of it makes use of the privilege of freedom to live for himself/herself and, in particular, to avoid noticing the danger of a war to the country as a whole, as long as possible and then do for the victory as little as possible. In a slave state such a “living for himself/herself” is a heinous crime.

(4) The population of the free countries cannot expect any addition to their private property from defeating the slave state of China. Now, General Chi Haotian has explained in his speeches that up to two-thirds of the population of the United States (and other defeated countries) will be poisoned or infected by mortal diseases, and their homes and other property will be taken over by the new (Chinese) settlers as by the superior race.

(5) William Saffire seems to have been the first to reveal (in the New York Times) the news that a U.S. president can be a traitor with total immunity even if the country in question (China) was a growing danger to the United States.

(6) Now is the time to mention an advantage of the free countries.

The principle of freedom is that a human being is free to do anything except what harms other human beings, according to a legal judgment.

The principle of a slave state is that it evaluates every human being on its territory from the point of view of the interests of the slave state and arranges his/her existence accordingly. If he/she has, according to this evaluation, a value only as a menial worker, he/she must continue to do his/her menial job. If he/she would not, he/she was, in Stalin’s Russia, branded as a “parasite” and sent to a labor camp.

In Stalin’s Russia, Einstein would have found himself in such a camp because no one, except an equally great genius, could originally recognize him until he received, at the age of 43, a Nobel Prize (with an understated lame definition). But before Hitler turned Germany into a slave state, it was free enough to value Einstein (a Jew!).

Then he left Nazi Germany for the United States, where in his letter of 1939 he convinced President Roosevelt to start the development of the “atom bombs,” to be ahead of Nazi Germany and Japan. On the other hand, Hitler halted the development of “atom bombs” in Germany, and Japan proved to be far behind.


Thus Einstein, who initially was thought to be just crazy, saved the free world from a German or Japanese atomic conquest.

How will the United States be able to hold out against the slave state of China when the latter transforms its 1.331 billion people (plus those who will grow up during that transformation and minus children and invalids) into producers and users of its latest weapons?

I will try to answer this in my next column.

What is tragic is that I, an American since 1972, have never heard any top official or an officer explaining how to defend the United States against a “developed” China, and I have never heard that someone (a U.S. president?) has even tried to imagine how this can be done.

You can e-mail me at navlev@cloud9.net.

As goes freedom, so goes the history of the world 没有自由人类便没有历史


www.kaichenblog.blogspot.com

那夫罗佐夫 引言: Words from Navrozov:

If China conquers the world, as China's General Chi Haotian describes it, there will be no world history as we know it, as there is none in the existence of animals or insects or microbes. --- Lev Navrozov

如果(奴役制)中国主宰(征服)了世界,有如中国国防部长迟浩田所希望与阐述的,世界的历史将会绝灭,就像动物、昆虫、单细胞原生物没有历史一样。 --- 列夫. 那夫罗佐夫

As goes freedom, so goes the history of the world 没有自由人类便没有历史


Lev Navrozov Thursday, November 5, 2009



(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.)

World history exists as long as does freedom. In Europe since the Renaissance, we value France not for its Napoleonic Wars, but for its paintings; we value Italy not for Fascism, but for its sculpture; and we value Germany not for its National Socialism, but for its music and philosophy. As a Russian, I hated the Russian Revolution, but I loved the Russian poetry, which lingered despite the Revolution even into the early 1930s of our century and was later passed on by secret notes among cognoscenti.

If China conquers the world, as China's General Chi Haotian describes it, there will be no world history as we know it, as there is none in the existence of animals or insects or microbes.


In the last four centuries of the world history, one of its key words was "revolution." This is how my Oxford English Dictionary defines the meaning of the word in the histories of England, France, and America:

English History. It is only the end of the "revolution" is usually recalled. The overthrow of the Rump Parliament in 1660, the rapturous reception of the king in London, and the restoration of the old good monarchy, which still exists in 2009 and endorses the king's or queen's prime-minister, proposed to them by the elected Parliament.

French History. In our Soviet textbooks, the French Revolution started with the seizure by the "French people" of the Bastille prison in Paris in 1789. The day, July 14, came to be observed in France as a national holiday. In our Soviet textbooks of history, the Bastille was represented on the first page of the Soviet saga about the "French Revolution," and even I believed that thousands of the most dangerous opponents of the monarchy were kept there. Why, if Stalin, a twentieth-century Marxist-Leninist revolutionary, kept prisoners on sheer suspicion of their being dangerous (e.g., "telling anti-Soviet jokes"), surely the French king of the eighteenth century could also imprison numberless "political" suspects. It is only in the West, when the range of my books in English grew, that I found out that when the fearless revolutionaries took the Bastille, they found there 7 (seven!) prisoners, none of whom could be regarded as a dangerous insurgent.

As for the king, he was beheaded by a guillotine, the French revolutionary beheader of all counterrevolutionaries.

Finally, not just a king or queen, but an emperor, named Napoleon, was in power in the "revolutionary France." He invaded Russia for no other cause or reason except his belief that since he is the emperor, he can beautifully put to death any number of people such as French and Russian soldiers (as well as Russian guerrillas, that is, local Russian inhabitants who fought the invaders on their own initiatives).

American History. The overthrow of the "British supremacy" in America did not occur without the influence of France and was realized by the "Revolutionary War of Independence" in 1775-1781.

George Washington was the first president (1789-1797) of the "Revolutionary America." He died two years later at the age of 67. The book on my shelves George Washington in His Own Words, which was published in 1997, says nothing about how he was elected.

What was George Washington in 1752, that is, at the age of 20, and in the next 20 years? He inherited an estate, along with 18 slaves. Far from freeing them (the idea!), he kept buying more slaves, and in 1760, when he was 28 years of age, he owned 49 slaves. Simultaneously, in 1752, at the age of 20, he started a military career at £100 a year.

Well, now, in the year of 1799, he wrote before his death his "Last Will and testament." He did not want to let his serfs free while his wife was alive.

Britain stopped its war intended to prevent the secession of America, since Britain could not supply well enough her troops across the Atlantic. The secession was wrong legally even from the "revolutionary" point of view. When a nation is conquered by another nation, the former can insist on secession. But most Americans (like George Washington) were English (their families or they themselves came from England), and their mother tongue was English. If they had the right to secede, then any part of any country has this right.

Washington died in 1799 at the age of 67. But two years earlier he finished his eight years as President of America.

Today a prime minister or a U.S. president should be a professional, like, for example, a scientist, or an inventor, or a pianist, or a medical doctor-preferably of genius. In the United States, the president is chosen by a majority of voters. But could a majority of voters elect Einstein, when only seven persons in the world understood him?

General Chi Haotian of China, its Minister of Defense up to 2004, explains how his 1.331 billion people of China will put to death one-third to two-thirds of American voters by Chinese new biological weapons, and here a majority of voters elect Obama as a new U.S. President, who meets in Washington for two days with several top officials of the owners of China to strike the "partnership" between the owners of China and the United States, i.e., between top Chinese officials like Chi Haotian and the United States, that is, its President Obama.

It was like having been elected Obama as the world's best pianist, and here, when Obama is asked to play Chopin's Waltz in F minor (Op. 69, No.1), and he speechifies that a piano is played by one's hands or feet.

After the United States, according to General Chi, all free countries will be defeated by the People's Republic of China. Mankind will become like animals or insects or microbes. Besides, the 21st century weapons may become so destructive that mankind will annihilate itself. Imagine in Stalin's Russia weapons that could destroy the world within a second. Then Trotsky or Bukharin would have destroyed the world with Stalin rather than let Stalin kill them.

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

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

Thursday, December 3, 2009

Obama 'Partners' With Slave State of China 奥巴马青睐奴役下的中国

陈凯一语: Kai Chen's Words:

Lev Navrozov 是一个目光敏锐、道德清晰的从前苏联避难来美的专栏作家。 他在中国的奴役非法性质上的认知非常清晰。 他问道:(奥巴马访华)一个自由国度怎么能与一个奴隶制国度搞伙伴关系?

Lev Navrozov came from USSR via political asylum. He has great moral clarity and sharp vision. He knows exactly what China is - a slave state under communist slave owners. He is asking now: (After Obama stated that he wanted to establish a partnership with China) How can a free country be a partner with a country under communist slavery? --- Kai Chen

Obama 'Partners' With Slave State of China 奥巴马青睐奴役下的中国


Thursday, December 3, 2009 1:21 PM



By: Lev Navrozov

http://www.newsmax.com/navrozov/

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2008/l.asp

My Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary defines a “slave state” as a “nation, subjected to a totalitarian rule.”

But I never have read or heard the expression “slave state” used in the sense my 1993 dictionary suggests. Even the word “totalitarian,” which originated in 1926, has been vanishing.

Common in the free West is the belief in social progress, following the timeline of first, in antiquity, there existed slavery, then, in the Middle Ages, more progressive feudalism, then, in our time. . .

Here the communists, whose founder was Marx (1818-1883), have been saying that feudalism was followed by capitalism, to be followed by socialism, and then by communism (a paradise on earth all over the world). Anyway, non-communists also will be likely to say that slavery does not exist today.

Oh, yes, it does! In WW2, the slave state of Germany defeated the free and modern France within six weeks, while the slave state of Stalin’s Russia defeated the conqueror of France, and he committed suicide.

It also is imagined often in the West that a country begins a war because it is insulted, mistreated, offended. Hence to establish or keep peace, such a country must be treated politely, nicely, kindly.

But please note that the growth of China’s military power became phenomenal after the Tiananmen movement of unarmed Chinese, calling for constitutionalism. What if dozens of millions of Chinese had joined the Tiananmen Constitutionalists as dozens of millions of Chinese withdrew from the “Communist Party of China”? What if the constitutional countries had helped them all to establish Constitutionalism?

The dilemma of the owners of China is simple: Either they will occupy the entire world (that is, establish their world empire), or their power will be taken away from them. They own all the wealth in the country, including all inhabitants, and whatever the precious metals and stones stored in China can buy in other countries.

The U.S.-China partnership is not just President Obama’s personal obsession. Many American “top experts on China” have been expressing such views long ago, and probably the best known of them, Michael D. Swaine, printed an article on the subject in The Washington Post of May 18, 1997. At the time, Swaine was director of the RAND Center for Asia-Pacific Policy. In 2009, Yahoo! Reprinted his 1997 article under the title “Don’t Demonize China.”

Swaine does not even say whether China is, socially, a slave state or a free country. Any criticism of China makes it appear demonic — like Hitler’s Germany after its invasions.

Thus, according to Swaine, “purveyors of the China threat employ distortions, half-truths and in some cases, complete falsehood.” Swaine considers five clusters of such demonic lies as five myths.

Myth No. 1 was created out of China’s “attempt to intimidate Taiwan.”

Myth No.2: China is pursuing a crash program of military modernization.

Myth No.3: China has already acquired advanced military systems.

Myth No.4: Perhaps “China does not have patient offensive capabilities as yet,” but will have them “within a decade.”

And Myth No.5: “China’s modernization effort is primarily intended to challenge U.S. capabilities across Asia.”

Nowhere in the article there is even a hint that the social nature of the United States and that of the post-1949 China is as different as were those of the democracy of France and of the slave state of Germany when Germany routed France within six weeks. Any suspicion that the post-1949 China differs fundamentally from the United States or any other democracy demonizes China.

When it became known publicly in the United States that the 44th president would make a three-day visit to China, it often was forgotten that this would be a response of China to Obama’s two-day reception in Washington of top Chinese officials and his declaration of the importance of the U.S.-China “partnership.”

The sensational event of Obama’s visit was his talk with Shanghai students, namely, his “gentle critique of their country’s approach to human rights,” as the Los Angeles Times put it.

What? He demonized China?

Well, Obama’s half-brother lives and wishes to live in China, though he has not a drop of Chinese blood. How many inhabitants of China are like he is? To them, human rights are of no interest or are just a disorder, and the absence of those rights is the order.

Then President Obama met with Hu, one of the owners of the slave state of China. Nothing became known about their meeting. No need to explain how dangerous for the United States is such an association of the U.S. presidents, visiting China on their own and meeting there on their own with whomever they want — for example, (a? the?) chief of the gang ruling a slave state like a herd of domestic animals without any restrictions.

The post-1949 slave state of China cannot be demonized, but the free countries can be turned to dust by the slave state of China.

The social development from slavery, as in post-1949 China, to personal freedom, as in the United States and several other countries, has been neither simple nor easy. Thinkers of genius have been working on the subject of personal freedom or liberty.

But here comes Obama, and those who have never read a sentence of those books of genius elect him as a genius in all fields of human endeavor, and he announces that the country of slavery and that of liberty are partners! The owners of a country of slavery (slave state) and the leaders (like Obama) elected in a country of personal freedom or liberty are partners!

Partners in what? In slavery or in freedom? Or in slavery and freedom? Those who are slave-owners, and those who are slaves and those who have elected in freedom their leaders or have been elected as such in freedom . . . they are all partners! In slavery-freedom?

© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

What’s Liberating about Islam? (伊斯兰)专制将个体从独立思考与选择责任中解脱了

陈凯一语: Kai Chen's Words:

"善走捷径”的人们(中国专制下、伊斯兰专制下生活的人们)常常不从反思自己的专制思维与心态中解放出来走向自由,反而将自由作为负担加以摆脱。 胆怯与懒惰是奴隶们的基点情结。 这个穆斯林女人所说的“加入伊斯兰教你就可以省事不用思考、选择了”也适用于许多狂热维护中国专制文化而拒绝自由的懦夫懒人们。 --- 陈凯

Those who are obsessed with "taking shortcut" (Muslims as well as Chinese who are used to despotism/tyranny) in life are often "true slaves". They are unwilling, unable and too timid to reflect on their own lives, in order to walk toward freedom, dignity and happiness. They often take freedom as some kind of burden to be ridden off. Cowardice and laziness are the basis for such enslaved mindset. As this Muslim woman states “joining in means you don't have to think for yourself anymore and it feels liberating", most Chinese who vehemently defend their ancestral despotic culture therefore refuse to establish a new culture of freedom have the similar views. --- Kai Chen

What’s Liberating about Islam? (伊斯兰)专制将个体从独立思考与选择责任中解脱了


– by Rita Karlsen

Posted on Dec 3rd, 2009 and filed under FrontPage.

“What’s liberating about Islam is that one is spared from having to think.” This, essentially, is how a woman explained to me the change that had taken place in her life since her conversion to Islam. Since then, I’ve thought about her many times, especially because at that time I didn’t know very much about Islam. Now I’ve learned more, have gotten to know many more Muslims, and just begun to worry about her lack of thought.

When she explained what was liberating about Islam, it amounted, more or less, to the following: “There are rules for everything. I’m spared from having to think. I just have to learn the rules, and then act. So I know that I’m doing the right thing. It’s liberating.”

To me, it sounded as if she had entered her second childhood. She was an adult, but had freed herself of responsibility for her actions. Responsibility lay elsewhere. Later, to be sure, her explanation caused me a good deal of unease, mainly because I have become acquainted with a number of the rules she lives by. When she decided to become a Muslim, it was a free choice, but having made that choice she is not free to choose which Islamic rules she will follow and which she will not.

I have since mentioned her attitude to other Muslim women, and to a large extent they shared it. But these are women who were born into Muslim families, and who thus face another “challenge,” as they call it: namely, the family. The “family” in question, however, is not a standard-issue Western family consisting of mom, dad, and two kids, but rather an extended family that includes father and mother, their five children, plus the father’s siblings and their offspring, plus the mother’s siblings and their offspring, and, as time goes by, the spouse’s equally sprawling clan. And then there’s the “community,” in which it isn’t necessarily people’s national origin that shapes their identity (there is, for example, a great difference between a Pakistani from a big city and one from a rural village), but rather the sheer fact that they are Muslims.

If, in such a context, you don’t follow the established rules, you have enough to fight against. In addition, these are collectivist cultures, so the struggle that you need to undertake is not an individual one; everything you say or do involves others in the family – it affects other people than oneself. The responsibility lies in the rules, and a violation of them, or an attempt to redefine them, will have consequences for the rules themselves. Precisely for this reason, it is “only” the scholars who can interpret the rules. It is only they who have sufficient authority to say how Islam should be understood and lived out. If an individual starts making such interpretations, complete chaos may result. Yes, the individual may begin to think for himself or herself, decide for him-or-herself what is right and wrong, and (possibly) accept the consequences of the choice.

The overwhelming majority of my Muslim friends lead lives divided between Western liberal values and Islamic rules. But they “shop” big time. They wear hijab or other ethnic garments for some occasions, keep a change of clothing in their purse if necessary (or in the trunk of a friend’s taxicab), they sneak drinks (but don’t eat pork), they attend mosque irregularly, they fast, celebrate Eid, have boyfriends, get plastic surgery, some submit to marriages arranged by their families but later divorce, others have their families “arrange” marriages with somebody they’ve found themselves, they give their children Muslim names and send them to Koran school for the sake of appearances. They do all this and more, all to avoid friction or conflicts with Muslims. This also explains why they marry “their own” – it’s simpler, they say. “How would I get a non-Muslim to understand – and live with – all this two-faced stuff we have to do?” one woman asked me.

So I sit here and wonder: we are always discussing Muslims’ living conditions and rights, always fretting about religious freedom, human rights and integration, and always doing so in a context in which it is “we” (the majority) who are defined as the problem. “We” want “them” to be like us (assimilation). But can it be that this is simply an internal matter, an issue that can only be resolved within the Muslim community itself? Can it be that various liberal values have become so internalized in at least some Muslims that the fatwas are beginning to lose their value? Have they led Islamic scholars to fear that they’re losing power – and thus causing those scholars to tighten their control?

Here in Norway, we saw it in our recent debate on hijab police uniforms, and will see it in our coming debate on religious head coverings for judges in the courtroom; we saw it in connection with the Danish Muhammad cartoons, in the French debate on face coverings, in the British dustup about sharia courts; and we’ll probably also see it in the debate about the Swiss ban on minarets – namely, Muslims who don’t really feel at all insulted or wounded, but who welcome these debates as opportunities to redefine Islam’s rules.

These are Muslims who have been rejected and neglected by conservative Muslims – with the aid of a media establishment that has chosen to serve as a professional mourner for this world’s 1.5 billion Muslims. While all the media handwringing benefits some Muslims, it makes life tough for other believers who genuinely aspire to clean up the House of Islam (to at least some extent), but who are silenced by some people’s eagerness to “understand” alleged Muslim “offense.”

This piece originally appeared on the website of Human Rights Service, www.rights.no, and has been translated from the Norwegian by Bruce Bawer.

Wednesday, December 2, 2009

CLIMATE CHANGE 'FRAUD' 世界暖化是个大骗局

陈凯一语: Kai Chen's Words:

“世界暖化”是继纳粹、共产邪念被摧垮后的新专制主义的又一大骗局。 其基点是毁灭以自由为基点的资本主义制度,并依靠人们的对未知的恐惧感建立一个新的强大专制。 美左、中共与世界所有的专制政权都将利用“世界暖化”强化反自由的大政府。 他们的一致前题是“自由毁灭地球”。 --- 陈凯

Global Warming (Climate Change) is another huge fraud perpetrated against free world since the bankruptcy of Nazism and Communism. It is aimed at destroying the current capitalistic system based on individual choice/freedom. It is based upon the deep-seeded fear of human beings toward the unknown. It is to establish another powerful regime for despotism/tyranny on the planet earth. The leftists in the West/America, the Chinese communist regime and all despotic societies around the world are eager to use such man-made fraud to subdue free individuals in the world. All despotic regimes' claim of "Climate Change(Global Warming)" has a similar premise: Freedom destroys the earth (Despotism saves the earth). --- Kai Chen

CLIMATE CHANGE 'FRAUD' 世界暖化是个大骗局


CLIMATE CHANGE: Many experts claim man-made global warming is melting sea ice

Wednesday December 2,2009

By John Ingham

THE scientific consensus that mankind has caused climate change was rocked yesterday as a leading academic called it a “load of hot air underpinned by fraud”.

Professor Ian Plimer condemned the climate change lobby as “climate comrades” keeping the “gravy train” going.

In a controversial talk just days before the start of a climate summit attended by world leaders in Copenhagen, Prof Plimer said Governments were treating the public like “fools” and using climate change to increase taxes.

He said carbon dioxide has had no impact on temperature and that recent warming was part of the natural cycle of climate stretching over ­billions of years.

If you have to argue your science by using fraud, your science is not valid.

Prof Plimer - author of Heaven and Earth: Global Warming, The Missing Science - told a London audience: “Climates always change. They always have and they always will. They are driven by a number of factors that are random and cyclical.”

His comments came days after a scandal in climate-change research emerged through the leak of emails from the world-leading research unit at the University of East Anglia. They appeared to show that scientists had been massaging data to prove that global warming was taking place

The Climate Research Unit also admitted getting rid of much of its raw climate data, which means other scientists cannot check the subsequent research. Last night the head of the CRU, Professor Phil Jones, said he would stand down while an independent review took place.

Professor Plimer said climate change was caused by natural events such as volcanic eruptions, the shifting of the Earth’s orbit and cosmic radiation. He said: “Carbon dioxide levels have been up to 1,000 times higher in the past. CO2 cannot be driving global warming now.

“In the past we have had rapid and significant climate change with temperature changes greater than anything we are measuring today. They are driven by processes that have been going on since the beginning of time.”

He cited periods of warming during the Roman Empire and in the Middle Ages – when Vikings grew crops on Greenland – and cooler phases such as the Dark Ages and the Little Ice Age from 1300 to 1850.

And he predicted that the next phase would cool the planet.

Climate change is widely blamed on the burning of fossil fuels which release greenhouse gases such as CO2 into the atmosphere, where they trap the sun’s heat.

The talks at Copenhagen are expected to find ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions globally.

But Professor Plimer, of Adelaide and Melbourne Universities, said that to stop climate change Governments should find ways to prevent changes to the Earth’s orbit and ocean currents and avoid explosions of supernovae in space. Of the saga of the leaked emails, he said: “If you have to argue your science by using fraud, your science is not valid.”

The CRU’s Professor Jones has admitted some of the emails may have had “poorly chosen words” and were sent in the “heat of the moment”. But he has categorically denied manipulating data and said he stood by the science. And yesterday he dismissed suggestions of a conspiracy to alter ­evidence to support a theory of man-made global warming as “complete rubbish”.

But mining geology professor Plimer said there was a huge momentum behind the climate-change lobby.

He suggested many scientists had a vested interest in promoting climate change because it helped secure more funding for research. He said: “The climate comrades are trying to keep the gravy train going. Governments are also keen on putting their hands as deep as possible into our pockets.

“The average person has been talked down to. He has been treated like a fool. Yet the average person has common sense.”

But Vicky Pope, head of Met Office Climate Change Advice, said: “We are seeing changes in climate on a timescale we have not seen before.

“There clearly are natural variations. But the only way we can explain these trends is when we include both man-made and natural changes to the climate.

“We have also seen declines in summer sea ice over the past 30 years, glaciers retreating for 150 years, changing rainfall patterns and increases in subsurface and surface ocean temperatures.”

And as the war of words between the rival camps intensified, leading economist Lord Stern dismissed the sceptics as “muddled”.

Lord Stern, who produced a detailed report on the issue for the Government, said evidence of ­climate change was “overwhelming”. He accepted that all views should be heard but said the degree of ­scepticism among “real scientists” was very small.

Tuesday, December 1, 2009

Kowtowing to China 向中共磕头的美国学术界

陈凯一语: Kai Chen's Words:

Who is corrupting whom? Who is winning the "Soft Cold War" waged against America by China? This report accurately depicts the extent of China's infiltration into and corruption upon American political culture, academics in particular. My former Political Science professor from UCLA has criticized me for my activism against the communist regime. I hope by now you know why. --- Kai Chen

谁在腐蚀影响谁? 谁在掀起一场阴险无声的“软冷战”去腐败侵蚀美国的政治权力人士与政治文化? 这份新报告揭示了中共对美国的“软冷战”战略--腐蚀美国的思想学术界。 我的在UCLA的前政治科学教授对我的反共活动曾提出批评。 现在人们应知道他为什么那样像中共献媚。 --- 陈凯


Kowtowing to China 向中共磕头的美国学术界

A new report details how Beijing influences American academics. 一份新报告揭露北京向美国学术界的渗透与控制

by Gary Schmitt
12/01/2009 12:00:00 AM

One of the best kept secrets in Washington is the continuing valuable service provided by the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission. The commission, established by Congress in late 2000, reports to Congress annually "on the national security implications of the bilateral trade and economic relationship" between the U.S. and China. Composed of a dozen government outsiders who are appointed by the minority and majority leadership in the Senate and the House, the commission is a forum intended to provide an on-going report card on the costs and benefits associated with the U.S. giving the People's Republic permanent "most favored nation" trade status and opening the door to its entry into the World Trade Organization.

Every year, the commission's report has policy nuggets that those who follow China and Asian economic and security issues come to rely on. This year's report, published just recently, is no different. While the report covers a rich variety of topics--such as Chinese trade practices, industrial policy, military modernization, intelligence, cyber-security and Chinese regional policies--the 2009 report also includes an important new section on the PRC's efforts to control "information" about China not only inside its borders but abroad as well, including in the United States. There is interesting data on PRC's use of American lobbying firms, public relations teams, think tanks, and print and electronic media.

But there is also an important discussion of Beijing's efforts to influence Western academic work on China, with an eye of course to putting a positive spin on China's own foreign and domestic policies:

As stated by one academic economist, "Academics who study China . . . habitually please the Chinese Communist Party, sometimes consciously, and often unconsciously . . . the incentives for academics all go one way: one does not upset the Party."

One of the punitive tools that the Chinese government may employ to intimidate foreign academics is the denial of visas to enter China to conduct research. Although the PRC will not officially acknowledge doing so, elements within the Chinese government have clearly placed a number of foreign academics on a visa denial "blacklist" due to their publishing on topics that hit a nerve with Beijing. One example may be seen in the case of several authors who contributed to a 2004 collection of articles about Xinjiang and subsequently found themselves denied visas to enter China. As described by one of the affected authors, no official explanation was given, other than, "You are not welcome in China. You should know why."

As another scholar quoted in the report points out, "The problem is most salient . . . for political scientists who study the Chinese government and need to nurture their contacts among Chinese officials. The effects are hard to measure, because people are reluctant to speak about them [and] no scholar likes to acknowledge self-censorship."

But, more corrosively, the self-censorship may be a product not only of wanting to sustain one's scholarly work and retain access to key contacts but also "to cash in." According to testimony before the commission, academics and government officials may at times be inclined to engage in self-censorship by the prospect of making money through doing consulting work outside the classroom or after leaving government. And the cost to the United States may, in turn, be significant. As Professor Perry Link noted in his remarks before the commission, "the U.S. government might not always receive the best or most objective advice on U.S.-China policy as a result of the 'subterranean economic interests that are at play.'"

Indeed.

In some respects, the commission's report picks up where Jim Mann's The China Fantasy: How Our Leaders Explain Away Chinese Repression left off, with Mann raising the specter of an interlocking league of elites (academics, business people, and former government officials) who for reasons low and high continue to suggest that all is going well in China--or, in a more sophisticated vein argue that, if we don't embarrass China's leaders now, they will slowly but surely address the concerns we have with them.

Both Democrats and Republicans made a bet more than a decade ago: Give China MFN trade status, membership in the WTO, and market forces and the resulting economic growth would inevitably increase the systemic pressures on China to liberalize politically. The argument at the time was that the market and the WTO would "corrupt" one-party rule from within China. But, if the commission's findings on the behavior of former government officials and academics studying China are close to being true, one has to ask: Who's corrupting whom?

Gary Schmitt is director of AEI's program on advanced strategic studies.

共產主義同種族滅絕 波蘭立法定罪 Communist Symbols Are Illegal in Poland

陈凯一语: Kai Chen's Words:

波兰及一些前东欧共产国家正在立法在其社会中驱逐所有共产标像符号。 这与二战后的德国立法驱逐纳粹(民族社会主义党)一样。 专制暴政的标像符号毒害人的灵魂。 中国在共产制度倒台之后也必须经过同样的立法素毒过程。 --- 陈凯

Poland, as well as some other former East European Communist countries, now is taking legislative action to rid off all the communist symbols (besides historical records) from its society. Germany took the similar action after WWII to rid off Nazi (National Socialist Party) symbols from its society. Indeed these symbols poison human soul and spirit. China should take the same legislative action to rid off Mao/Communist symbols in Chinese society after the downfall of the communist regime. --- Kai Chen


http://www.ntdtv.com/xtr/b5/2009/11/30/a380731.html#video

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

【中國禁聞】共產主義同種族滅絕 波蘭立法定罪 Communist Symbols Are Illegal in Poland

新唐人電視 www.ntdtv.com 2009-11-30 08:24

下載錄像文件 https://edit2009.ntdtv.com/xtr/b5/2009/11/30/a380731.html#video

【新唐人2009年11月30日訊】另一方面,波蘭反對黨“法律和秩序黨”領導人表示,共產主義同法西斯一樣都是「種族滅絕」的像徵,共產主義標誌不能在波蘭土地上存在。

波蘭近日通過法律,禁止銷售、使用和轉播共產主義標誌。這是繼立陶宛、拉脫維亞等國之外,把傳播和使用共產主義定義為犯罪的波羅的海國家。 同時,烏克蘭也準備立法來取締共產黨。

波蘭的這項法律兩個月前被波蘭議會通過。總統卡欽斯基已經簽署生效。主要內容包括,禁止生產、販賣、使用、傳播和存放共產主義以及納粹法西斯的標誌。根據這項法律,使用共產黨的鐮刀、斧頭、紅旗、紅星等標誌,將面臨罰款或是被判處兩年監禁的處罰。但這項法律不擴展到教育、藝術和古董收藏領域。


美國之音報導轉述波蘭議員羅馬舍夫斯基評論這項法律時說,波蘭曾生活在納粹法西斯以及共產主義兩個專制制度之間,波蘭深受這兩個邪惡制度之害。

在另一個已獨立的前蘇聯加盟共和國烏克蘭,也出現更多的聲音呼籲取締共產黨的活動。烏克蘭國家對外情報局檔案館館長維亞特羅維奇在悼念“大饑荒遇難者日”前夕表示,“共產主義同納粹法西斯一樣都是犯罪的意識形態。因此烏克蘭應該禁止這樣的意識形態。”

烏克蘭右翼政治勢力“烏克蘭民族主義者大會”以及烏克蘭西部一些地方的政界人士發表聲明說,蘇聯共產黨當年屠殺了千百萬烏克蘭人,烏克蘭共產黨是蘇共的繼承人,烏克蘭政府應儘快取締共產黨的活動。

烏克蘭總統尤先科上個月表示,他準備向議會提交法案,禁止共產主義標誌。尤先科說,烏克蘭必須譴責共產黨極權專制並應同過去的蘇聯劃清界限。


除了波羅的海的這些國家之外,東歐的一些國家明確禁止共產主義標誌。而美國對共產主義的抵制通常是在意識形態的範疇之內,還沒有像波蘭這些國家,通過國家的法律,把宣揚共產主義定義為犯罪行為。

新唐人記者 宋長河 周平 綜合報導
-------------------------------------------------------------

Poland to Ban Communist Symbols 共產主義同種族滅絕 波蘭立法定罪

By Andrew Curry AFP 11/24/2009

Poland is considering criminalizing its communist past.

Reforming Poland's hate-crime legislation may mean criminalizing communism. An amendment to the criminal code awaiting the president's signature would ban a broad category of communist symbols. Left-wing politicians say the law does more to violate human rights than protect them.

Poland is on the verge of banning communist symbols in a change to the country's penal code that could make everything from the hammer and sickle and red star to Che Guevara t-shirts illegal.

The amendment would adjust the country's hate-crime legislation to criminalize the "production, distribution, sale or possession ... in print, recordings or other means of fascist, communist or other symbols of totalitarianism." The punishment could be a fine or up to two years in prison. Exceptions could be made for artistic, educational, collecting or research purposes.

Elzbieta Radziszewska, the Polish government's special representative for equal rights issues and a member of the country's ruling Civic Platform (PO) party, proposed the changes to the law in the spring. It has enjoyed broad support from other Civic Platform politicians as well as members of the conservative Law and Justice (PiS) party, of which Polish President Lech Kaczynski was formerly a member. The two parties control 375 of the 460 seats in the Polish parliament.

The amendment would beef up an existing hate-crime law that banned "public propagation of fascist and other totalitarian systems." Similar bans on symbols of the Nazi era exist elsewhere in Europe, including Germany, but the breadth of Poland's law -- and its application to symbols of communism -- is unusual.

'Communism Comparable to Nazism'

When the changes to the law were passed by the Polish parliament in early November, Jaroslaw Kaczynski -- the president's twin brother and head of the Law and Justice party -- spoke strongly in support of it. "Communism was a genocidal system that led to the murder of tens of millions of people," PiS head Jaroslaw Kaczynski said. "No symbol of communism has a right to exist in Poland, because these are symbols of a genocidal system that should be compared to German Nazism."

The law's critics say the word "symbol" leaves the law broad to the point of absurdity, making everything produced during Poland's more than 50 years under communist rule potentially illegal, from popular communist-era movies and TV shows to the iconic Palace of Culture, a Stalinist behemoth built in 1955 that towers over central Warsaw.

"It's just a silly thing," Tadeusz Iwinski, a parliamentarian from the left-wing Polish Social Democratic party who opposes the change, told SPIEGEL ONLINE. "What does it mean, 'symbol'? Does that mean when government officials go to China and make pictures under the banner of the Communist Party they are breaking the law?"

The amendment has already been approved by the Polish Senate, and still needs the signature of the Polish president. President Kaczynski has until Monday, Nov. 30 to sign off on the penal code amendments. Iwinski says if the law goes into effect -- it's part of a larger bill including other changes to the nation's penal code -- it will likely be struck down at the European level.

Handcuffed for a Red Star

There is, in fact, a clear precedent from Hungary, where symbols of communism like the hammer and sickle and red star -- along with the swastika -- have been banned as "symbols of tyranny" since 1994. In 2003, Hungarian politician Attila Vajnai was arrested, handcuffed and fined for wearing a red star on his lapel during a demonstration.

Vajnai appealed his sentence all the way to the European Court of Human Rights, which decided last year that the ban was a violation of the freedom of expression, calling the Hungarian ban "indiscriminate" and "too broad."

"Merely wearing the red star could lead to a criminal sanction and no proof was required that the display of such a symbol amounted to totalitarian propaganda," the court ruled. "Uneasiness alone, however understandable, could not set the limits of freedom of expression."

Right-wing Polish politicians are also pushing for a law that would force local authorities to re-name street signs and buildings bearing the names of communists.