Sunday, October 25, 2009
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Government is meant to be subverted: On Tan Zuoren being accused of inciting subversion of the state (3)
I seriously think “the crime of subverting the state” is pointless in the sense of legality and logicality; it is ludicrous enough to unify the concept of state/country and polity and make them a crime. I have discussed in my former article A country can never be subverted that why a country could not be overthrown by its own people, today I am going to talk about how government is meant to be subverted.
Country is a conception thrived not long ago, comprised in general of people, land and sovereignty, where the importance of people and land is self-evident. But where does the sovereignty come from? According to the principles of civilian and modern politics, sovereignty is exerted by the elected government for the people who hold the ballots; put it in another way, government is only the manager of public interests for people, or the temporary holder of the sovereignty. Country is like an iron pan whereas, on which, government can be likened to fluid soldier.
There has not been any everlasting government, or any unchangeable governance, since it is impossible for people to be always content with their government. If discontent with the government, what type of attitude should the people hold? One is tolerance, like what is occurring in China in which most people tolerate the behavior of the government; the other is intolerance, like what is occurring to the other small group of people in China. When it comes to the point where most people become intolerant, what means could be taken? The first means coming up is subversion by force, which is the major means of ancient China for dynasty replacement, and also what, ever appreciated by the current government, peasant uprising did. This means, however, brings about such enormous catastrophes to its people and country that are beyond the imagination and reach of us, thus it has withdrawn from the arena of humans today when modern civilian politics has become more and more pervaded.
The Chinese communist government has been in power for six years, but its anxiety of governing legality has never been relieved, but rather become more and more frightened, how come? It is because that they know their position was gained by guns and bloods instead of by elections, and they understand the threat from guns. They were appreciating guns, because by which they threw down the previous government, therefore arguing for the legality of guns is part of their permanent job. From Mao Zedong’s “regime coming from guns” to late 1980s, their insane exultation over peasant uprising of each dynasty was nothing but for eliminating their anxiety of illegal governance.
Why do they have such anxiety? It is because of the analysis and thinking of the common people as a result of this exploding information era in which the world has unprecedentedly opened and interacted, in which assorted comparisons are happening between different governments and institutions. Regarding Mao’s law of guns, while there are several governments in the world still using it, in general this type of violent revolution, or say, jungle rule has gradually discarded by modern civilian politics, since replacement of regime at the cost of holocaust is unaccepted by human intelligence presently.
The power of Chinese communist government comes from violence; although it has been 60 years, its legality is not fully convinced since violent replacement is not accepted by the mainstream civilian world and politics. For Chinese people, thanks to brainwashing and suppression for many decades, they have little idea of from where a regime of legality comes. They could, yet, touch the good and bad of a regime by themselves; only simply physical perception such like looking, listening, feeling and slightly thinking, rather than profound sensing, could tell the effect of a regime. If it comes to realization of the nature of the regime, of course more information and knowledge are needed.
The Chinese communist government knows, without question, the illegality of violent replacement, that’s why they extremely prettify violent revolution. The violent revolution is still documented in Chinese history textbooks where the civil war between communist and nationalist party and the killing of compatriots are described as revolution war, and where killing of the so-called reactionary nationalists is still being glorified. The reason for being such unashamed of killing compatriots and for uglifying the millions of compatriots killed by ourselves (including innocents), is to brainwash the people, rendering them to believe that advent of such violent regime is an inevitable product of history, of people’s choice, and of, ultimately, legality.
But they have never been calm down; they are frightened, on the one hand, and they are ruling the people using frightening, on the other. Besides, they draw on the means of creating enemies to cause mutual fighting between people, and to make people work for their unashamed party-related ideological fight (war and diplomacy). As a matter of fact, they are the same with us, all living in a world of growing globalization rather than in ancient jungle; and they are deeply aware of the illegality of their violence-resulted regime and their undemocratic and fettered governance. And due to deep awareness of its illegality, they have to take the means of suppressing and brainwashing to make the people submitted.
While there are still a handful of governments in the world that have not adopted democracy, more and more countries are moving towards democracy and freedom, in that democratic system has been proven to be one that is able to guarantee a relatively balanced achievement in justice, effectiveness and people’s freedom. This does not by any means mean democratic system is the best in the world, and in fact with respect to governance system there is no best but better. Government, due to its characteristic of being a deputy manager for public interests and national sovereignty and its nature of election by people, should be submitted to its people, and its power comes only from legal election. If a government does not come through by election, it could not represent its people; failure in representing its people indicates its power sourced from violence or stealing, and stolen regime is axiomatically illegal. It is well-known that history is trending towards the system of democracy and freedom; any person or any organization standing in the way is nothing more than a car before a speeding train.
Country is a conception thrived not long ago, comprised in general of people, land and sovereignty, where the importance of people and land is self-evident. But where does the sovereignty come from? According to the principles of civilian and modern politics, sovereignty is exerted by the elected government for the people who hold the ballots; put it in another way, government is only the manager of public interests for people, or the temporary holder of the sovereignty. Country is like an iron pan whereas, on which, government can be likened to fluid soldier.
There has not been any everlasting government, or any unchangeable governance, since it is impossible for people to be always content with their government. If discontent with the government, what type of attitude should the people hold? One is tolerance, like what is occurring in China in which most people tolerate the behavior of the government; the other is intolerance, like what is occurring to the other small group of people in China. When it comes to the point where most people become intolerant, what means could be taken? The first means coming up is subversion by force, which is the major means of ancient China for dynasty replacement, and also what, ever appreciated by the current government, peasant uprising did. This means, however, brings about such enormous catastrophes to its people and country that are beyond the imagination and reach of us, thus it has withdrawn from the arena of humans today when modern civilian politics has become more and more pervaded.
The Chinese communist government has been in power for six years, but its anxiety of governing legality has never been relieved, but rather become more and more frightened, how come? It is because that they know their position was gained by guns and bloods instead of by elections, and they understand the threat from guns. They were appreciating guns, because by which they threw down the previous government, therefore arguing for the legality of guns is part of their permanent job. From Mao Zedong’s “regime coming from guns” to late 1980s, their insane exultation over peasant uprising of each dynasty was nothing but for eliminating their anxiety of illegal governance.
Why do they have such anxiety? It is because of the analysis and thinking of the common people as a result of this exploding information era in which the world has unprecedentedly opened and interacted, in which assorted comparisons are happening between different governments and institutions. Regarding Mao’s law of guns, while there are several governments in the world still using it, in general this type of violent revolution, or say, jungle rule has gradually discarded by modern civilian politics, since replacement of regime at the cost of holocaust is unaccepted by human intelligence presently.
The power of Chinese communist government comes from violence; although it has been 60 years, its legality is not fully convinced since violent replacement is not accepted by the mainstream civilian world and politics. For Chinese people, thanks to brainwashing and suppression for many decades, they have little idea of from where a regime of legality comes. They could, yet, touch the good and bad of a regime by themselves; only simply physical perception such like looking, listening, feeling and slightly thinking, rather than profound sensing, could tell the effect of a regime. If it comes to realization of the nature of the regime, of course more information and knowledge are needed.
The Chinese communist government knows, without question, the illegality of violent replacement, that’s why they extremely prettify violent revolution. The violent revolution is still documented in Chinese history textbooks where the civil war between communist and nationalist party and the killing of compatriots are described as revolution war, and where killing of the so-called reactionary nationalists is still being glorified. The reason for being such unashamed of killing compatriots and for uglifying the millions of compatriots killed by ourselves (including innocents), is to brainwash the people, rendering them to believe that advent of such violent regime is an inevitable product of history, of people’s choice, and of, ultimately, legality.
But they have never been calm down; they are frightened, on the one hand, and they are ruling the people using frightening, on the other. Besides, they draw on the means of creating enemies to cause mutual fighting between people, and to make people work for their unashamed party-related ideological fight (war and diplomacy). As a matter of fact, they are the same with us, all living in a world of growing globalization rather than in ancient jungle; and they are deeply aware of the illegality of their violence-resulted regime and their undemocratic and fettered governance. And due to deep awareness of its illegality, they have to take the means of suppressing and brainwashing to make the people submitted.
While there are still a handful of governments in the world that have not adopted democracy, more and more countries are moving towards democracy and freedom, in that democratic system has been proven to be one that is able to guarantee a relatively balanced achievement in justice, effectiveness and people’s freedom. This does not by any means mean democratic system is the best in the world, and in fact with respect to governance system there is no best but better. Government, due to its characteristic of being a deputy manager for public interests and national sovereignty and its nature of election by people, should be submitted to its people, and its power comes only from legal election. If a government does not come through by election, it could not represent its people; failure in representing its people indicates its power sourced from violence or stealing, and stolen regime is axiomatically illegal. It is well-known that history is trending towards the system of democracy and freedom; any person or any organization standing in the way is nothing more than a car before a speeding train.
Friday, September 4, 2009
A country can never be subverted: on Tan Zuoren being accused of inciting subversion of the state(2) (8/2/2009)
Except reading the news about Tan right after getting up, I have noticed the speech spread online recently, The party in power should have its basic political ethics—talking of an old leader before the celebration of National Day for 60 years, delivered by Wan Li, one of the former high-level leaders in communist party. It is a sign that not all people have died in the party who dare speak of truth. Some of the retired high-level party leaders, such as Li Rui, Du Daozheng, Xie Tao, Li Shenzhi and Hu Jiwei etc., started with authentic ideals when they were youngsters and winded up speaking of authenticity when retired, but strayed away when in position.
This is, rather than blaming them for their cowardliness in not speaking up, but a description of basic facts while investigating their malfeasances during governance; they had too many anxieties that they had dispossessed the basic political ethics. It is of little difference of Wan Li; he dared not speak up while trapped in his anxieties. He is still welcome, however, when he releases the truth now. But concerning this common pattern of truth-at-both-ends, it is because of the ruling part that is not grounded on basic political ethics; not only does it clamp down on dissidents outside the party but also suppress differing voices within the party. Subversion of the state is a penalty intended by such a party lacking basic political ethics, and the clause documenting such penalty is typically a representation of evil law.
In fact, the crime of counterrevolution is the precursor of the crime of subversion of the state. The ruling party keeps messing the country up and they conceive of it as revolution; you stand out to fight against their messing-up and for your own rights, you are considered counterrevolutionary. Such crime is so encompassing and evil that most dissidents are sacredly breathless and soundless. And even if you had done nothing wrong, the ruling party could also accuse you using this crime, as is evidently demonstrated in many preposterous historical materials.
In 1990s, the authority posited that the crime of counterrevolution was too outdated and to some extent politically threatening, thus brought forward the crime of subverting the state “with times”. Conceiving of the critiquing of government as subversion of the state, as matter of fact, is tantamount to equaling the government to the state, and of no difference with taking the state as the domain of the government.
The crime of subversion of the state is ridiculous from the perspective of legal principle, and logistically irrational. COUNTRY and REGIME (including government) are virtually different conceptions; a country could never be subverted by its people—only when the country is entirely occupied by other races with its cultures eliminated is it considered subversion or extinction, of whose, however, the probability of occurrence is drastically low; that’s why that Ming dynasty was conquered by Qing, another people, is not accounted as subversion of China—while only a regime (government) can be switched.
Is Song dynasty’s erasing of Tang Dynasty subversion of the country? When Communist Party was forcing Nationalist Party out of China, is that subversion? No. That is only renaming of dynasty, while such bloody renaming doesn’t conform to the principles of the modern civilized society in which government is voted in and out. The principles of modern civilized society, put in another way, constitute that the government is supposed to be subverted; United States, for instance, subverts its government legally every 4 years, as is the case, by and large, of the other democratic countries. In essence, the country resembles an iron-forged pan while the government fluid soldier; the country can never be subverted by its people while the government is meant to be subverted. The best way of subversion, however, is peaceful subrogation based on ballot, rather than on bloody guns.
The crime of subverting the state is an evil tool by which the governors, most of time, use to loot public resources, as well as to threaten the ordinary people. That many local governors clamp down on dissents is not actually because of the dissents aimed at subversion but at shaking their authorities or reputations as the dissents might have criticized the corruption under their leads or pointed out the dire circumstances that their governed people are living in.
The local governors, however, are afraid of accusing them for normal crimes, which harms their reputation, thus they opt the crime of subversion to punish those who dare speak out and do good. Personally I think except for the case of Liu Xiaobo whose arrest for subversion was decided by the central government, in most cases “the crime of subversion of the state” was abused as a cover by local governors to suppress the punishers and their supporters into wordlessness, leaving the innocent people around believe that the arrested are really undertaking subversion of the state. This is where the real reason why the provincial commissioners and local governors keep utilizing this crime frequently. Even if the arrested were mischarged, it does not disadvantage the governors too much as it is for the country, rather than the private interests, that they have done so.
Using the charge of inciting subversion of the state, as a matter of fact, by local governors could bury the fact that it is for private gains, rather than for the public interests. In the case of Tan, this is particularly evident. The real reason that the local government persecutes Tan is because of his protestation against establishing of a combined ethylene plant and oil refinery in Peng Zhou (Peng Zhou Petro-Chemical, in short), Sichuan Province, and his investigation into the list of students killed in 5.12 earthquake as well as appeal to creation of student archive.
The things that Tan has been leading in have affected the political achievement and interests of local governments. The governors could not arrest or charge him of inciting subversion of the state due to these two activities, however, for its illogicality and illegality and public pressure as well. Yet, they succeeded in doing so by seizing the fact that Tan has expressed against centre government regarding1989 event as well done things in memorial of it. This is indeed taking advantage of the sensitivity to 1989 event of centre government by the local; even the criminals have been mischarged, the local government will not be too much blamed as it is for stabilization of whole society for the centre that the local government did it, rather than their local or personal interests. Consequently, in the case of Tan, they succeeded in suppressing local opponents, thus covered their own misdeeds, and will not be blamed.
If Liu Xiaobo and Tan Zuoren are charged of subversion of the state for speaking the truth, I would like to ask the government, what about Wan Li, one of our former leaders, whom expressed the same thoughts in The ruling party should construct its basic political ethics—a former leader speaks before the 60th national day? Is he facing the same charge? Following the evil law you enacted, Wan Li could not avoid the same fate. If nothing happens to Wan Li, whereas Liu and Tan are saddled with the crime of state subversion, should we interpret it as that the leaders of China do not need conform to our common laws?, the speech given by Wan Li should be read by all Chinese Communist Party members. The crime of subversion of the state, frankly speaking, is established by a ruling party without any basic political ethics, and must be eliminated.
This is, rather than blaming them for their cowardliness in not speaking up, but a description of basic facts while investigating their malfeasances during governance; they had too many anxieties that they had dispossessed the basic political ethics. It is of little difference of Wan Li; he dared not speak up while trapped in his anxieties. He is still welcome, however, when he releases the truth now. But concerning this common pattern of truth-at-both-ends, it is because of the ruling part that is not grounded on basic political ethics; not only does it clamp down on dissidents outside the party but also suppress differing voices within the party. Subversion of the state is a penalty intended by such a party lacking basic political ethics, and the clause documenting such penalty is typically a representation of evil law.
In fact, the crime of counterrevolution is the precursor of the crime of subversion of the state. The ruling party keeps messing the country up and they conceive of it as revolution; you stand out to fight against their messing-up and for your own rights, you are considered counterrevolutionary. Such crime is so encompassing and evil that most dissidents are sacredly breathless and soundless. And even if you had done nothing wrong, the ruling party could also accuse you using this crime, as is evidently demonstrated in many preposterous historical materials.
In 1990s, the authority posited that the crime of counterrevolution was too outdated and to some extent politically threatening, thus brought forward the crime of subverting the state “with times”. Conceiving of the critiquing of government as subversion of the state, as matter of fact, is tantamount to equaling the government to the state, and of no difference with taking the state as the domain of the government.
The crime of subversion of the state is ridiculous from the perspective of legal principle, and logistically irrational. COUNTRY and REGIME (including government) are virtually different conceptions; a country could never be subverted by its people—only when the country is entirely occupied by other races with its cultures eliminated is it considered subversion or extinction, of whose, however, the probability of occurrence is drastically low; that’s why that Ming dynasty was conquered by Qing, another people, is not accounted as subversion of China—while only a regime (government) can be switched.
Is Song dynasty’s erasing of Tang Dynasty subversion of the country? When Communist Party was forcing Nationalist Party out of China, is that subversion? No. That is only renaming of dynasty, while such bloody renaming doesn’t conform to the principles of the modern civilized society in which government is voted in and out. The principles of modern civilized society, put in another way, constitute that the government is supposed to be subverted; United States, for instance, subverts its government legally every 4 years, as is the case, by and large, of the other democratic countries. In essence, the country resembles an iron-forged pan while the government fluid soldier; the country can never be subverted by its people while the government is meant to be subverted. The best way of subversion, however, is peaceful subrogation based on ballot, rather than on bloody guns.
The crime of subverting the state is an evil tool by which the governors, most of time, use to loot public resources, as well as to threaten the ordinary people. That many local governors clamp down on dissents is not actually because of the dissents aimed at subversion but at shaking their authorities or reputations as the dissents might have criticized the corruption under their leads or pointed out the dire circumstances that their governed people are living in.
The local governors, however, are afraid of accusing them for normal crimes, which harms their reputation, thus they opt the crime of subversion to punish those who dare speak out and do good. Personally I think except for the case of Liu Xiaobo whose arrest for subversion was decided by the central government, in most cases “the crime of subversion of the state” was abused as a cover by local governors to suppress the punishers and their supporters into wordlessness, leaving the innocent people around believe that the arrested are really undertaking subversion of the state. This is where the real reason why the provincial commissioners and local governors keep utilizing this crime frequently. Even if the arrested were mischarged, it does not disadvantage the governors too much as it is for the country, rather than the private interests, that they have done so.
Using the charge of inciting subversion of the state, as a matter of fact, by local governors could bury the fact that it is for private gains, rather than for the public interests. In the case of Tan, this is particularly evident. The real reason that the local government persecutes Tan is because of his protestation against establishing of a combined ethylene plant and oil refinery in Peng Zhou (Peng Zhou Petro-Chemical, in short), Sichuan Province, and his investigation into the list of students killed in 5.12 earthquake as well as appeal to creation of student archive.
The things that Tan has been leading in have affected the political achievement and interests of local governments. The governors could not arrest or charge him of inciting subversion of the state due to these two activities, however, for its illogicality and illegality and public pressure as well. Yet, they succeeded in doing so by seizing the fact that Tan has expressed against centre government regarding1989 event as well done things in memorial of it. This is indeed taking advantage of the sensitivity to 1989 event of centre government by the local; even the criminals have been mischarged, the local government will not be too much blamed as it is for stabilization of whole society for the centre that the local government did it, rather than their local or personal interests. Consequently, in the case of Tan, they succeeded in suppressing local opponents, thus covered their own misdeeds, and will not be blamed.
If Liu Xiaobo and Tan Zuoren are charged of subversion of the state for speaking the truth, I would like to ask the government, what about Wan Li, one of our former leaders, whom expressed the same thoughts in The ruling party should construct its basic political ethics—a former leader speaks before the 60th national day? Is he facing the same charge? Following the evil law you enacted, Wan Li could not avoid the same fate. If nothing happens to Wan Li, whereas Liu and Tan are saddled with the crime of state subversion, should we interpret it as that the leaders of China do not need conform to our common laws?, the speech given by Wan Li should be read by all Chinese Communist Party members. The crime of subversion of the state, frankly speaking, is established by a ruling party without any basic political ethics, and must be eliminated.
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Disaster will come down to us: on Tan Zuoren being accused of inciting subversion of the state (1) (8/1/2009)
The day before yesterday, from Miss Wang—Tan’s wife—I got the indictment to Tan Zuoren by People’s Procuratorate at Chengdu. I have read it throuhg several times and found it logically messed up, unreasonable and ridiculous! I, therefore, plan to diagnose this indictment meticulously, comment on every sentence and, if possible, write a series of commentary. Welcome to comment on this indictment, especially those professional in the area of law.
At the same time, I will update the news about Tan everyday on my Twitter, you are welcome too; the address of my Twitter will be attached to this article. Besides, I have made up my mind to break the former routine of composing one article every day, I will write intensively to discuss the case of Tan instead. Everything I know with respect to Tan will be shared with anyone enquiring or interviewing me; I will try all my best to cooperate, thanks.
I welcome you to write for supporting Tan, and I will put them together for everybody to read. In addition, I will glean to the greatest extent the articles written by and about Tan, and gather them in a place where we could be informed, and where we could also exchange ideas with time saved. I will also reproduce the articles that I think are informative or profound in understanding Tan’s case on my blog, for the convenience of the readers.
In a country, one with continuous disasters occurring at an amazingly high rate, and one also terrifying, every one of us is Tan Zuoren. Don’t think you are lucky enough to avoid them; as long as the institutions are unchanged, you will be ultimately troubled. The amazedness of China, or say, this insane country, lies in the fact that disasters will knock at your door voluntarily. You don’t even have the freedom of escaping as the disasters will haunt around you like nightmares and badger with you like vipers. In a country resembling a huge prison, now most of the jails have become overcrowded; many of our friends—Liu Xiaobo, Xu Zhiyong, Huang Qi, Guo Feixiong, Shi Tao, Hu Jia, Tan Zuoren etc.—are in there. For those living relatively freer like us outside the real jails, we should try to do something within our reach to help them unfettered. Although freedom outside the jails is also limited, it is definitely better than inside.
In a country with little freedom, the moments of fortune have got less and less left for us. Freedom is the consequence of fighting, freedom never comes by charity. You think you could escape the disaster as long as you stay away, the disaster might respond: no way, to get you, bystander, is easiest of all. You think you need only protect yourself; the disaster might respond: killing people like you is the most enjoyable, just like drinking coolest beer in summer. You might think you could just be free-riding those leading the fight; the disaster might respond: it gets easier and smoother to take you away once the bellwethers have been eliminated. In any case, said John Donne, “send not to know for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee,” as every one of us is interconnected. My friend in Beijing reinterprets this saying in another way: send not to know for whom the bell tolls, it is you that fuck it sounding. This is a critique to those malfeasants.
At the same time, I will update the news about Tan everyday on my Twitter, you are welcome too; the address of my Twitter will be attached to this article. Besides, I have made up my mind to break the former routine of composing one article every day, I will write intensively to discuss the case of Tan instead. Everything I know with respect to Tan will be shared with anyone enquiring or interviewing me; I will try all my best to cooperate, thanks.
I welcome you to write for supporting Tan, and I will put them together for everybody to read. In addition, I will glean to the greatest extent the articles written by and about Tan, and gather them in a place where we could be informed, and where we could also exchange ideas with time saved. I will also reproduce the articles that I think are informative or profound in understanding Tan’s case on my blog, for the convenience of the readers.
In a country, one with continuous disasters occurring at an amazingly high rate, and one also terrifying, every one of us is Tan Zuoren. Don’t think you are lucky enough to avoid them; as long as the institutions are unchanged, you will be ultimately troubled. The amazedness of China, or say, this insane country, lies in the fact that disasters will knock at your door voluntarily. You don’t even have the freedom of escaping as the disasters will haunt around you like nightmares and badger with you like vipers. In a country resembling a huge prison, now most of the jails have become overcrowded; many of our friends—Liu Xiaobo, Xu Zhiyong, Huang Qi, Guo Feixiong, Shi Tao, Hu Jia, Tan Zuoren etc.—are in there. For those living relatively freer like us outside the real jails, we should try to do something within our reach to help them unfettered. Although freedom outside the jails is also limited, it is definitely better than inside.
In a country with little freedom, the moments of fortune have got less and less left for us. Freedom is the consequence of fighting, freedom never comes by charity. You think you could escape the disaster as long as you stay away, the disaster might respond: no way, to get you, bystander, is easiest of all. You think you need only protect yourself; the disaster might respond: killing people like you is the most enjoyable, just like drinking coolest beer in summer. You might think you could just be free-riding those leading the fight; the disaster might respond: it gets easier and smoother to take you away once the bellwethers have been eliminated. In any case, said John Donne, “send not to know for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee,” as every one of us is interconnected. My friend in Beijing reinterprets this saying in another way: send not to know for whom the bell tolls, it is you that fuck it sounding. This is a critique to those malfeasants.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Postcard devlivering people's will (8/19/2009)
No matter speaking of the verse “who delivers it from up cloud” by Li Qingzhao, or “a letter from a female stranger” by Zweig, they are both concerned with things romantic. The recent concerning gathering online and practical delivery of card in real life to right-defender, however, has little to do with romance, but a lot to do with freedom and democracy, dignity and rights.
Half a month ago, a slogan online “Jia Junpeng, you mother calls you back to eat” became flourishing almost all over the internet unreasonably, leaving many who research the internet stunned. Through further investigation, it is lately discovered the reason goes to imported online games; some of them could not be continuously played without governmental permit. This is a sign that the government has become more and more concerned about these online games with which the western values of freedom and democracy are bonded. Playing these games, they might possibly think, will render Chinese young players to be affected insensibly by the values and cultures hidden in the games. Such imperceptible “education” will make their propaganda of obscurantism less effective, thus challenging their target of brainwashing.
As known to all, most of Chinese youngsters surf online only for games, caring little about other things in reality than themselves. It seems that such things are too far for these obsessed young netizens to pay attention to as the harms brought about by power or continuous societal unjustness. They have no clue, however, that even you stay away from politics, it still comes to interfere with your life in other ways. In another word, you don’t care about catastrophe, it comes knocking your door voluntarily; nobody could avoid, which is the cruel reality of China. If you expect to sidestep like a hermit, it doesn’t work. I thus believe, the slogan “Jia Junpeng, you mother calls you back to eat” is a sort of protestation, implicit or even silent.
Due to the governmental oppression, latitude for Chinese traditional media to express has been unprecedentedly stifled. The governmental paws have also stretched out to the internet; things are happening all the time such like deletion, blocking, removal of the website or, even, arresting the dissidents. It gives rise to, as a consequence, other ways of obscure expressions; this is the actual setting for the pervasive slogan “Jia Junpeng, you mother calls you back to eat”. And only under such situation in which straightforwardness means danger could the reasonless prevalence of this slogan online be understood.
In the early morning of July 15, at the moment that Twitter user Amoiist (Guo Baofeng) was to be arrested, he sent out a message asking for help throughTwitter immediately: I have been arrested by Mawei police, SOS. While it is nothing new to hear about abusive arrests by Chinese police, such a terrifying call for help from a person distant away has never been encountered. That a compatriot cried out for help in an abysmal situation extremely touched many Twitter users who had been panicked but indignant at the same time. Thus proposed by some who know Guo Baofeng like Yue Han and Bei Feng etc., many people sent out over hundreds postcards to the imprisoned Gro Baofeng, in order to express support and comfort.
Coincidentally, the arrest came across the abovementioned flourishing slogan starting from July 16, which could be used as the expression for the jailed Guo Baofeng too. Subsequently, “Guo Baofeng, your mother calls you back to eat” became the central words of the postcard delivery activity. It is of great fortune that after 16 days of imprisonment, Mr. Guo was “called” for unsure reasons, and had relatively more freedom. To the netizens who have involved in postcard delivery, there could be no better comfort and encouragement than this. Naturally, netizens start thinking of many more rights-defenders imprisoned and have decided to carry on this postcard delivery activity.
People might get disappointed, as their postcards, even reaching the jails, might not reach their addressees. In the case above, said Guo Baofeng, there were so many postcards delivered to his jail that other correspondences were affected (in fact he did have the chance to see those cards in jail, he saw them after he got out through pictures taken online, which chocked him with sobs). This is, of course, an effrontery of the government, but it does not by any means indicate the fault of postcard delivery. That is because freedom of correspondence is the basic right of criminals; anybody including his/her family could write to him/her as being part the freedom. (Abridged)
As far as the checking of correspondences by jails are concerned, we could keep the evidence before sending out, such as delivering by express or registered letter. If in future the prisoners approve they didn’t receive the correspondences, we could sue the jails to defend and respect our laws. This is the point where the significance of postcards delivery lies in my opinion.
Concerning the initiative postcard delivery activity to imprisoned rights-defenders, human rights lawyer Tang Jingling said “postcard is a card of people’s will”, and asserted “democracy starts with postcard”. The two sentences he expressed actually pinpoint the meaningfulness of this activity which looks like an action art. “Postcard is a card of people’s will” (in Chinese, “postcard” and “people’s will card” share a similar pronunciation) is a harmonic tone easy to remember; “democracy starts with postcard” points out the fact that many, previously being silent, have expressed their opinions at the least cost and with almost zero risk, which is also a sign that we will no longer keep silence.
The life of human being is a life of expression; how could you prove your vigorous existence if you have no expression, nor attitude? Living in such an era has presented us with many helplessness and hopelessness, but we need to be aware that the process of pursuing democracy is like an engagement in a disaster film, in which we might not escape from death, we might die without a burial place. But all these just demonstrate that life is a process. Could there be a better process than combating for dignity and freedom? I think the quality of our living embodies in the process we continuously express our opinions; although so far most of time our words are insignificant, we should not be pessimistic and we should even enjoy this tough trip of effort. Thus the postcard delivery activity is part of our expression and effort. Let us use the postcards on hand to speak for the people who have suffered for standing out to combat for democracy and freedom, for dignity and rights. Such tiny expression of respect and support, representing in the postcard delivered, will let them know that they are not lonely on their tough road of progress.
Half a month ago, a slogan online “Jia Junpeng, you mother calls you back to eat” became flourishing almost all over the internet unreasonably, leaving many who research the internet stunned. Through further investigation, it is lately discovered the reason goes to imported online games; some of them could not be continuously played without governmental permit. This is a sign that the government has become more and more concerned about these online games with which the western values of freedom and democracy are bonded. Playing these games, they might possibly think, will render Chinese young players to be affected insensibly by the values and cultures hidden in the games. Such imperceptible “education” will make their propaganda of obscurantism less effective, thus challenging their target of brainwashing.
As known to all, most of Chinese youngsters surf online only for games, caring little about other things in reality than themselves. It seems that such things are too far for these obsessed young netizens to pay attention to as the harms brought about by power or continuous societal unjustness. They have no clue, however, that even you stay away from politics, it still comes to interfere with your life in other ways. In another word, you don’t care about catastrophe, it comes knocking your door voluntarily; nobody could avoid, which is the cruel reality of China. If you expect to sidestep like a hermit, it doesn’t work. I thus believe, the slogan “Jia Junpeng, you mother calls you back to eat” is a sort of protestation, implicit or even silent.
Due to the governmental oppression, latitude for Chinese traditional media to express has been unprecedentedly stifled. The governmental paws have also stretched out to the internet; things are happening all the time such like deletion, blocking, removal of the website or, even, arresting the dissidents. It gives rise to, as a consequence, other ways of obscure expressions; this is the actual setting for the pervasive slogan “Jia Junpeng, you mother calls you back to eat”. And only under such situation in which straightforwardness means danger could the reasonless prevalence of this slogan online be understood.
In the early morning of July 15, at the moment that Twitter user Amoiist (Guo Baofeng) was to be arrested, he sent out a message asking for help throughTwitter immediately: I have been arrested by Mawei police, SOS. While it is nothing new to hear about abusive arrests by Chinese police, such a terrifying call for help from a person distant away has never been encountered. That a compatriot cried out for help in an abysmal situation extremely touched many Twitter users who had been panicked but indignant at the same time. Thus proposed by some who know Guo Baofeng like Yue Han and Bei Feng etc., many people sent out over hundreds postcards to the imprisoned Gro Baofeng, in order to express support and comfort.
Coincidentally, the arrest came across the abovementioned flourishing slogan starting from July 16, which could be used as the expression for the jailed Guo Baofeng too. Subsequently, “Guo Baofeng, your mother calls you back to eat” became the central words of the postcard delivery activity. It is of great fortune that after 16 days of imprisonment, Mr. Guo was “called” for unsure reasons, and had relatively more freedom. To the netizens who have involved in postcard delivery, there could be no better comfort and encouragement than this. Naturally, netizens start thinking of many more rights-defenders imprisoned and have decided to carry on this postcard delivery activity.
People might get disappointed, as their postcards, even reaching the jails, might not reach their addressees. In the case above, said Guo Baofeng, there were so many postcards delivered to his jail that other correspondences were affected (in fact he did have the chance to see those cards in jail, he saw them after he got out through pictures taken online, which chocked him with sobs). This is, of course, an effrontery of the government, but it does not by any means indicate the fault of postcard delivery. That is because freedom of correspondence is the basic right of criminals; anybody including his/her family could write to him/her as being part the freedom. (Abridged)
As far as the checking of correspondences by jails are concerned, we could keep the evidence before sending out, such as delivering by express or registered letter. If in future the prisoners approve they didn’t receive the correspondences, we could sue the jails to defend and respect our laws. This is the point where the significance of postcards delivery lies in my opinion.
Concerning the initiative postcard delivery activity to imprisoned rights-defenders, human rights lawyer Tang Jingling said “postcard is a card of people’s will”, and asserted “democracy starts with postcard”. The two sentences he expressed actually pinpoint the meaningfulness of this activity which looks like an action art. “Postcard is a card of people’s will” (in Chinese, “postcard” and “people’s will card” share a similar pronunciation) is a harmonic tone easy to remember; “democracy starts with postcard” points out the fact that many, previously being silent, have expressed their opinions at the least cost and with almost zero risk, which is also a sign that we will no longer keep silence.
The life of human being is a life of expression; how could you prove your vigorous existence if you have no expression, nor attitude? Living in such an era has presented us with many helplessness and hopelessness, but we need to be aware that the process of pursuing democracy is like an engagement in a disaster film, in which we might not escape from death, we might die without a burial place. But all these just demonstrate that life is a process. Could there be a better process than combating for dignity and freedom? I think the quality of our living embodies in the process we continuously express our opinions; although so far most of time our words are insignificant, we should not be pessimistic and we should even enjoy this tough trip of effort. Thus the postcard delivery activity is part of our expression and effort. Let us use the postcards on hand to speak for the people who have suffered for standing out to combat for democracy and freedom, for dignity and rights. Such tiny expression of respect and support, representing in the postcard delivered, will let them know that they are not lonely on their tough road of progress.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
The ears of the grain will smash his head
Some people perceive that the absurdness in the era of Chairman Mao is exaggerated by critics. The fact, however, is that the criticisms of Mao, either from the perspective of breadth and depth, of specifics in particular, or from individual empirical study, are far from enough. As to the absurdness in the absurd era, the most incisive castigation is not criticism based on contentless slogans, but on evidences sufficient to demonstrate its preposterousness.
While I don’t agree with many of Li Ao’s claims after Taiwan’s realization of democracy, I do think one of his words is conducive in comprehending the hardships in China after 1949, that is, “I prove you are an asshole instead of cursing you.” It is far more convincing to prove the falsehood and nonsense of the governmental ideology using facts based on detailed materials and empirical methods than simply infuriated words.
The Anti-right struggle in 1957 and the Great Leap Forward (GLF) in 1958 were the direct drivers of three years famine (which should actually be five years from 1958 to 1962); anti-right struggle had killed off the critics and thus paved the way for the lies in GLF in 1958. Once the rational voices had been erased, craziness started flooding; omnipresent making of iron and steel, national folk-song activity, bombastic amount of production etc., combining together, drove the whole society into insanity and fever collectively.
Concerning the national folk-song movement, there should be professional researches on, say, how the competition of folk songs and poetries was initiated and organized; a statistical collection of the authors that participated in; or the statistics of the publishers then as well as the total amount of printing (as complete as including mimeograph and letterpress). All these fundamental researches could provide good grounds for analyzing the role folk-song movement played in the propagandizing and fostering of GLF, as well as in apotheosizing of Mao (even could help make clearer the impact of such apotheosization on the cultural revolution, thereby contributing to restoration of the history. To my knowledge, however, it seems no such research comes out so far; our ambiguous perception of the government is due in part to such insufficient research.
People started to die in 1958 due to starvation, which deteriorated into famine in a large scale in 1959, but the government still kept lying, like the sing orioles and darting swallows. In China, fortunately, we have Mr. Yang Jishen’s book Tombstone exclusively documenting the great famine; outside China, we have Jasper Becker’s Hungry Ghosts: Mao’s Secret Famine. The work done by Backer encompasses the relation and comparison of Mao’s famine with that of Ukraine under governance of Soviet Union, it also covers the situation in Tibetan-inhabited areas. All these are the places that the work of Mr. Yang is relatively weak at, it is recommended, therefore, to refer to both of them so as to grasp a complete picture.
In the years of 1958, especially 1950, the phenomenon of people killed by starvation became very normal, yet the government still exalted the prosperity and printed lots of eulogistic things. The book “1958 poetry”, which is similar to poet yearbook, is nothing but a collection of goose-raising pufferies that were prevalent across the whole country with many races taking part in.
Xu Chi wrote in the preview of 1958 Poetry (August, 1958, 5500 copies printed) that “Everywhere becomes the sea of poems. China has been a country of poems. The poems written by workers, peasants and soldiers are shining brightly. Many factories or plants have emerged with uncountable poems; everywhere turns into an area million-poem; and many military camps are one with million poems.”
“Almost in every county,” he went on, “from the local governors to the people, everyone gets down to writing; everywhere a folk-song fair is held. Competition of poems is so pervasive that all provinces have to do it through wireless radio. Poetries, collection of poems and journals of poems and songs, published in forms of mimeograph and letterpress, are countless. The poems are created on streets, sculptured on stones, posted in plants, building sites and furnaces. Handouts of poems are flying everywhere across the whole country.
“The advent of communes is a big event that calls the global attentions and praises, and also a spectacular theme of many poems.” Accordingly, we had a whole list of people who, then, were professional in singing the praises of the government, to name but a few, Guo Moruo, Li Jishen, Li Ying, Guo Xiaochuan, Yuan Shuipa, Yuan Ying, Zang Kejia, Li Guangtian, Deng Tuo, Guang Weiran, Chen Qitong, He Jingzhi, Li Ji and Xu Chi. Under such crazy circumstance, it is not stunning that such threatening poems like The ears of the grain will smash his head emerged, shown below, in the province of Gan Su in which the amount of death was only third to Sichuan and Henan,
The ears of the grain will smash his head
--Qing Guangyuan, Gan Su province
Streams of clearness flowing day and night,
Crops greening in commune,
Who dare say there is no harvesting of food,
The ears of the grain will smash his head.
While I don’t agree with many of Li Ao’s claims after Taiwan’s realization of democracy, I do think one of his words is conducive in comprehending the hardships in China after 1949, that is, “I prove you are an asshole instead of cursing you.” It is far more convincing to prove the falsehood and nonsense of the governmental ideology using facts based on detailed materials and empirical methods than simply infuriated words.
The Anti-right struggle in 1957 and the Great Leap Forward (GLF) in 1958 were the direct drivers of three years famine (which should actually be five years from 1958 to 1962); anti-right struggle had killed off the critics and thus paved the way for the lies in GLF in 1958. Once the rational voices had been erased, craziness started flooding; omnipresent making of iron and steel, national folk-song activity, bombastic amount of production etc., combining together, drove the whole society into insanity and fever collectively.
Concerning the national folk-song movement, there should be professional researches on, say, how the competition of folk songs and poetries was initiated and organized; a statistical collection of the authors that participated in; or the statistics of the publishers then as well as the total amount of printing (as complete as including mimeograph and letterpress). All these fundamental researches could provide good grounds for analyzing the role folk-song movement played in the propagandizing and fostering of GLF, as well as in apotheosizing of Mao (even could help make clearer the impact of such apotheosization on the cultural revolution, thereby contributing to restoration of the history. To my knowledge, however, it seems no such research comes out so far; our ambiguous perception of the government is due in part to such insufficient research.
People started to die in 1958 due to starvation, which deteriorated into famine in a large scale in 1959, but the government still kept lying, like the sing orioles and darting swallows. In China, fortunately, we have Mr. Yang Jishen’s book Tombstone exclusively documenting the great famine; outside China, we have Jasper Becker’s Hungry Ghosts: Mao’s Secret Famine. The work done by Backer encompasses the relation and comparison of Mao’s famine with that of Ukraine under governance of Soviet Union, it also covers the situation in Tibetan-inhabited areas. All these are the places that the work of Mr. Yang is relatively weak at, it is recommended, therefore, to refer to both of them so as to grasp a complete picture.
In the years of 1958, especially 1950, the phenomenon of people killed by starvation became very normal, yet the government still exalted the prosperity and printed lots of eulogistic things. The book “1958 poetry”, which is similar to poet yearbook, is nothing but a collection of goose-raising pufferies that were prevalent across the whole country with many races taking part in.
Xu Chi wrote in the preview of 1958 Poetry (August, 1958, 5500 copies printed) that “Everywhere becomes the sea of poems. China has been a country of poems. The poems written by workers, peasants and soldiers are shining brightly. Many factories or plants have emerged with uncountable poems; everywhere turns into an area million-poem; and many military camps are one with million poems.”
“Almost in every county,” he went on, “from the local governors to the people, everyone gets down to writing; everywhere a folk-song fair is held. Competition of poems is so pervasive that all provinces have to do it through wireless radio. Poetries, collection of poems and journals of poems and songs, published in forms of mimeograph and letterpress, are countless. The poems are created on streets, sculptured on stones, posted in plants, building sites and furnaces. Handouts of poems are flying everywhere across the whole country.
“The advent of communes is a big event that calls the global attentions and praises, and also a spectacular theme of many poems.” Accordingly, we had a whole list of people who, then, were professional in singing the praises of the government, to name but a few, Guo Moruo, Li Jishen, Li Ying, Guo Xiaochuan, Yuan Shuipa, Yuan Ying, Zang Kejia, Li Guangtian, Deng Tuo, Guang Weiran, Chen Qitong, He Jingzhi, Li Ji and Xu Chi. Under such crazy circumstance, it is not stunning that such threatening poems like The ears of the grain will smash his head emerged, shown below, in the province of Gan Su in which the amount of death was only third to Sichuan and Henan,
The ears of the grain will smash his head
--Qing Guangyuan, Gan Su province
Streams of clearness flowing day and night,
Crops greening in commune,
Who dare say there is no harvesting of food,
The ears of the grain will smash his head.
Friday, July 3, 2009
Are they winning by amount?
On July 1st, as the Communist Party celebrates its eighty eight year’s birthday, the government proudly reveals that the party members of Communist have reached 75.931 million, 17 times that of 1949. The amount of people, as a matter of fact, doesn’t by any means represent the validity and legality of an association. In an environment in which one party predominates with little existence of equal competition, in which joining and withdrawing are constrained while the monopolized social resources by power are employed to attract membership, 76 million members out of 1.3 billion could not be an accomplishment that should be proud. Under the condition that there are no competitors—democratic parties in China are nothing but interest-derivatives or parasites of the communist party, rather than rivals, even taking account of them it would not make a big number in front of our total population—the ratio of party membership has barely reached one twentieth for the past sixty years. A party that alleges itself as the best of all in the world, one with the powerful backup of army and tax while without any competition or opposition, is unable to convert all our 1.3 billion people into membership, should it be a failure or not?
To be frank, the government does want to unify all people into party members, the problem, though, is that it is impossible if all were made members. That is because the party is where all the interests converge and where the dividing of loot takes place, the privileges of the party members would not be reflected had every person been part of the loot dividing. It is just like everyone being an official, there would not be any soldiers to serve, which could make the position of official meaningless. That is to say, they could not involve everyone into party member, since it would be too costly if all packed in and, one the one hand, it would get in peril the exploitation of interests by the party or the maximization of governors’ interests at all levels, on the other.
However, there could not be a small amount of people in the loot dividing group, otherwise the power of its competition looks insufficient. Even though with the backup of the authority over the army and tax, a stable victory could not be count on for them. As a result, the plan for dividing the loot should be gradually phased in; the scholars, capitalists and adult students joining in the party in recent years could be an embodiment of the plan. The way that the loot is divided resembles that the officials who commit crimes could only face disciplinary action within the party instead of being sentenced. But, of course, if you are involved in after bribed, you need to adapt yourself to the rules within the party: being a screw under the party constitution or replacing the human nature with party spirit so as to be tied up with the party on the road of dividing the loot.
In accordance with the principles of modernized parties, it is free to join in and withdraw any party, which is to say, if human rights were jeopardized because of admission to a party, especially jeopardy to personal freedom, such admission is tantamount to kidnapping by underground organizations. The current governmental party-admission process that one has to go through holds a pattern—fist up and swearing—that resembles that of old gangster organizations; two introducers needed have nothing different from the recommendation or introduction one needed in order to be admitted to the organizations. Moreover, there is no freedom to publicly quit the party, nor is there any chance the party members could not be loyal to the leaders. Thus, the current ruling party is not a real ruling party in some sense, it is rather a underground organization backed up by army. How could an organization, close to or even being underground organization, exercise a civilized polity and safeguard the interests of its people; except creating an illusion of peace through relying on lying and brainwashing, controlling the media and propaganda, threatening with force which leads to massive panic among the people, there is no real guarantee of the interests of people, let along the realization of freedom and democracy.
There are shared interests for an organization, but pursuit of such shared interests falls back on the organization’s validity, and such validity comes from its obedience to laws and adherence to equality and competition. The current Communist party is not officially registered, first of all, it doesn’t allow for competitions from other parties, second of all; all these are what monopolies do and against the Anti-trust laws. It is unacceptable for the communist party to lift the on ban political parties at present, but it should at least alter the way how members are admitted, such as promoting transparency, unleash the hurdle of quitting, otherwise there is still a long way for the communist party to go before becoming a modernized and civilized political party. Since such gulf still exists, there could not be civilized politics, without which its legitimacy of ruling will always be a dead hole unsatisfactory to its people. People unsatisfied, coupled with imbalance between societal majority and individuals in competing for interests, will put the interests of everyone in peril and jeopardize a stable development of our society. That building a utopia based on the structure of underground organization, with which to fool its people in order to loot their interests, is a malfeasance unforgivable.
If the freedom of quitting and entering is not deprived, now there must be such occurrences; but a party with members more than seventy million is scared of its members quitting publicly, does it make sense? Does the underlying reason involve being afraid of domino effect that could lead up to the eventual collapse? You certainly don’t need to worry, since you don’t have counterparts so far controlling adequate amount of interests that could be offered to your members. It is, however, getting less and less proud for the party members to acknowledge of the membership in the normal life now. There is a well-known saying: you are fucking a party member, you whole family is fucking party members in the sense that, because of acknowledging of the membership, it is tantamount to conceding the injustice of the party as well as relating themselves to many corrupt officials. To those members who controls little power, therefore, it is evident that they start feeling regretted.
In an animal world, there are of course many ways of living and competing; some win by amount and some by quality, but a balance has to be reached in the biological chain or in the biological world. To my limited biology knowledge, there is a strategy of surviving, which is based on unlimitedly proliferative amount to survival due to its poor life instinct or weak competence, such like rat and cockroach. If you think the amount is the kingcraft, thus you need to assign all of your people memberships, which is the most preeminent showing-off. But doing so is too costly and against you will of maximizing looting your people’s interests. That is to say, mimicking the rat or cockroach is too prohibitive to be possible. But you should know this is a world of human being rather than one filled with competing rats or cockroaches (even if it was, you are unable to convert other worlds into the same), any attempt of effort at proving its validity and legitimacy through amount is nothing but ignorant dream.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)