毛并无优缺功过，只有罪恶
Mao - No Merits or Faults, Only Crimes

www.kaichenblog.blogspot.com

陈凯一语 Kai Chen's Words：

As I read the comments and attacks on my initiative “Global Day to Denounce Mao" (October 1, 2009), I encountered a numerous messages saying Mao should be viewed overall by his merits and faults, by a quantitative judgment, not a qualitative judgment. I wonder when people uttered those words, have they ever thought about the 70 million innocent lives and countless families perished and utterly destroyed under Mao and the communist regime in China? What kind of achievement could a biggest mass murderer of innocent lives have? Why has there never been a sense of justice and human dignity in Chinese society? This mentality of no responsibilities for anyone at any time reflects not only a moral corruption in the Chinese political culture, but an inability to establish a civil society with liberty and justice for everyone and all. If Mao were not a criminal mass murderer in human history, then the Chinese themselves would easily escape their own responsibilities as individuals when they commit unjust and evil act against their own fellow human beings.

In essence, my indictment of Mao and the communist regime in China is an indictment of the entire Chinese political culture with its deep-rooted immorality and thorough nihilistic mindset. Therefore, "Global Day to Denounce Mao" (October 1, 2009) has a special meaning and effect of cleansing the moral confusion and corruption from the Chinese political culture, as well as the mainstream American and global political culture. --- Kai Chen

当我读了那些对我的“十月一日全球逐毛日”评论与攻击之后，我看到了众多的所谓评价毛功过的言论。 似乎中国的人们已被阉割了他们作为人的全部道德良知的纤维。 他们已经麻木到了对事物只愿有量的争论而不能进行任何质的辨别的程度。 他们曾经想过那在毛共之下七千万无辜死亡的人们和无数的被毁灭的家庭吗？ 除了罄竹难书的滔天罪恶，一个为所欲为的、为了个人权欲野心滥杀无辜的刽子手会有什么样的功过？ 为什么在中国的社会文化中自古就缺少正义感与对自由尊严的追求？ 对毛的道德放纵其实只是每个中国人对自身道德责任感的逃避与否认，也是中国的人们从不追求个体自由的基点原因。 如果毛可以对他的杀人虐待不负任何道德谴责甚至不以为耻反以为荣，那所有中国的个人们也都可以对自己在毛共罪恶政权下对身边无辜的非正义不道德的行为推卸责任。

在实质上说，我对毛与共产邪权罪行的指控是对整个中国现存的深刻的政治文化的腐败与中国专制虚无心态的指控。 “全球逐毛日”(2009年10月1日) 由此会有一个特殊的含义 -- 清除我们自身的在中国的政治文化中、在美国的与全世界的政治文化中的道德混乱与道德腐败。 --- 陈凯

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

Dear Visitors:

Since I launched the "Global Day to Denounce Mao" (October 1, 2009), I received many attacks through emails, online comments and phone calls. Many have comments such as "Mao is still a great man regardless how many people he killed", or "All politicians have blood on their hands, Mao is not an exception", or simply "Mao should be viewed only by his merits/achievements as well as his faults as a historical figure"..... The moral evasion, moral confusion and moral corruption emanated from these comments reveal the deep-seated Chinese nihilistic political culture. The stinks are unbearable.

Some perverted views even say that we should forgive Mao and the communist crimes, for we should be standing on higher moral ground. How can one forgive a criminal without him being put on trial, or him confessing his own crimes and beg for forgiveness? Only perverts pretend to be forgiving without justice achieved. My initiative of "Global Movement to Denounce Mao" aims at righting these wrongs, aims at cleansing the corruption and contamination in the world political culture. The display of Mao's statue in the Nixon Presidential Library indeed reflects such moral confusion, corruption and contamination. I hope all of those who still have conscience and moral integrity join me to fight for justice, to fight for liberty, to fight for our souls with human integrity and dignity.

Best wishes to you all. Kai Chen

A university student works lovingly on his statue of The Great Helmsman 中国大学生精心炮制毛像

Chinese university students “swear by Chairman Mao”
中国大学生仍向毛发誓

A typically upbeat article in Xinhua tells us that Mao, the mass murderer who more than any other force helped initiate the brain death of China during his reign, is still revered by China’s university students, who continue to treasure his teachings:

Chinese university students are caught up in the trappings of modern life - discussing the Hong Kong movie Infernal Affairs, idolizing Taiwan pop band F4 and flaunting their cellphones - but they still “swear by Chairman Mao.”

In fact, the influences of the late Chinese leader, Mao Zedong, who was born on December 26, 1893, on modern youth are not limited to the language of discourse.

Cheng Haowen, a student of astronomy at Nanjing University in eastern Jiangsu Province, said Mao’s realistic approach, characterized by testing and improving theories in the course of practice, distinguished him from many Chinese figureheads, who were satisfied with being sage and detached from social reality to show their superiority.

You have to wonder whether the reporter was actually keeping a straight face as he wrote that. Realistic approach? Testing and improving theories? Like, the Cultural Revolution was a tested improvement over the Great Leap Forward? (If Conrad were around he’d reply with something like, “Jesus H. Christ on a rubber pogo stick!”)

A socialist whose inspirational sources can be traced back to Chinese classics such as the works of Sun Zi, an eminent ancient military strategist, Mao left a spiritual legacy of pragmatism, depending on the masses of people and solving problems without resorting to foreign forces, which have an impact on the attitudes of a new generation of university students, said Cheng.

What can one say? I’ve heard Mao accused of many things, but pragmatism isn’t one of them. And “depending on the masses”? Mao screwed the masses monumentally, and more than a quarter of a century after his death they are still reeling from his certifiably insane policies that devastated the environment and robbed a generation of its critical faculties.

Although Mao erroneously initiated the “cultural revolution” (1966-76) in his later years, fostering cult-like admiration for himself, he and his spiritual legacy still deserve to be studied objectively, said Cheng, who was born in 1985.

“Erroneously initiated.” How is that for bland language? It makes it sound like a frigging accounting error. And even though he left China a basket case, we still love his spiritual legacy and want to study it objectively quack quack quack.

I suppose I should resign myself to the fact that Mao worship isn’t going away anytime soon. But I want to believe that most students today don’t really believe there’s anything worth studying in Mao’s “spiritual legacy.” Nearly all my friends in China told me that Mao is someone they simply ignore, and that all the government’s BS about his greatness is recognized as a pointless show. I sure hope they’re right.

When will China and Russia come clean about these monsters?
面对我们的过去--毛和斯大林的魔影

The mass murderers Mao and Stalin continue to exert a baleful influence on their countries, says George Walden.

By George Walden
Published: 5:01PM BST 03 Sep 2009

If they woke up one morning to discover a giant portrait of Hitler in the centre of prosperous, democratic Berlin, Germans would be outraged. Yet China, a country that is freer and richer by far than at any time for 60 years, keeps its portrait of Chairman Mao, one of the cruelest tyrants in history, in a dominant position in Tiananmen Square.

Hitler's war claimed a total of some 35 million lives, soldiers and civilians. Mao starved or murdered double that. Admittedly they were his own people, but then you might have thought the Chinese would be even keener to have his portrait removed, and the full truth told.

Meanwhile, in Russia, Stalin enjoys a creeping rehabilitation. Some of the truth came out in Khrushchev's famous, denunciatory speech of 1956, but Stalin's international actions are assigned to a different, patriotic realm. To this day Russians have been slow to make the link between the gulag at home and aggressive policies abroad: the Comintern, designed to promote Soviet-type revolution the world over, the invasion of Finland, the Baltic States and Poland at the onset of the war, the brutal subjection of Eastern Europe in its wake.

The man who slaughtered his top generals on the eve of Hitler's onslaught, and when told that the Nazis had invaded simply refused to believe it, has gone down as the saviour of his nation. His tough domestic policies and ruthless diplomacy, such as the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of 1939, we increasingly hear, were necessary to protect the country from the Nazi hordes.

It is true that Stalin and Mao succeeded in building up their countries' strength and making them count in the world. In a pitiless dictatorship, you can get things done; Hitler did wonders for the German economy in the Thirties. But in the longer haul totalitarianism ran Russia into the ground economically, and deformed its spirit. In China, Mao's Great Leap Forward (40 million dead), then his Cultural Revolution, beggared the country.

In Stalin's fearsome Kolyma labour camp it was one inmate's job to hack off the hands of starved and frozen corpses and hang them in rows, so they could thaw for finger-printing. In China's remoter provinces, as a result of Mao's famines, mothers gave their babies to each other, not wanting to eat their own.

Now that the Russians and the urbanised Chinese have access to more facts about their respective monsters, how can their governments fail to tell the whole truth, and nothing but? In essence the answer is: for governments there is never a good moment to incite the tensions and divisions truth-telling would bring, and in any case many people are in no hurry to know.

This is not to say there is no pressure to face up to the past. In China the official line – that Mao's policies were 70 per cent "correct" and 30 per cent "incorrect" – was laid down in 1993 by Deng Xiaoping. Pressed by victims of the Cultural Revolution for greater honesty, he said that determining the exact balance was limited by "the situation". The situation being that less educated Chinese can be nostalgic for the Mao era of the "iron rice bowl", and that to go further might risk damaging the Communist Party's leading position.

In Russia, there is a feeling of going backwards. Stalin was alarmingly well placed in a poll of the nation's most revered historical figures. In the context of President Putin's refusal this week to condemn him outright for the Molotov/Ribbentrop Pact, we should remember that 61 per cent of Russians have no idea that their troops invaded Poland on September 17 1939, weeks after it was signed. I doubt whether many want to know.

What can the West do to encourage Russia to face up to its past, and make its foreign policy less prickly? We have certainly shown our ability to make things worse, with our cack-handed policy of expanding Nato relentlessly eastwards, thereby nourishing Russian fears about encirclement. Who next for membership, China?

Such fears are not wholly manufactured to keep people loyal. Russia was invaded by Napoleon and Hitler, with unimaginable suffering. China will soon be a vastly more powerful country, Mao's lunacies brought the countries close to war in 1969, and there is historical distrust between them.

Intelligent, open-minded, westernised folk I meet in Moscow become hyper-patriotic on the subject. The most striking thing about our policy on Georgia and the Ukraine is that the older generation of hard-line anti-communists in Britain and America were against it, because they knew their history. Younger politicians and commentators were panting to earn their Thatcherite spurs. But Thatcher was a realist, and in power I can't imagine her committing herself to nuclear war with Moscow in defence of an unstable Georgian leadership.

Something else we can do is to expose revisionism, which is becoming fashionable in our own countries. A generation of younger historians is emerging with little or any experience of totalitarianism. Capitalism isn't covering itself in glory, so inevitably we are seeing the question asked: seen in the round, were Stalinism and Maoism really so bad? They most certainly were. As a Russian journalist has written: "The Molotov-Ribbentrop cocktail has a delayed fuse. It explodes in people's heads, mutilating the conscience of the Russian nation." Failure to tell the truth about Mao mutilates China's conscience too.

From Nixon to Obama - Nihilism over Freedom
从尼克松到奥巴马：改变世界重要还是自由重要？！

Do we want only change or do we want freedom?
你是想追求改变还是追求自由？！

陈凯一语： Kai Chen's Words:

Link to the Nixon Library website on "World Leaders":
尼克松图书博物馆网上链锁： （世界领袖部）

http://www.nixonlibraryfoundation.org/in...manentGalleries

I now post the passage about the section of "World Leaders" in the Nixon Presidential Library/Museum below for your reference. Nixon's standard for a world leader is whether he makes a difference. Such standard is nihilistic in nature and devoid of any moral values. Today Obama wants the same thing for the world - "change". But to what direction? Is "change" what we should want or is "Freedom" what we all want? Are we living to breathe only or are we living to seek freedom, dignity and happiness? The biggest picture is lost in the current perversion of American political cultural landscape. If it is only "change" we want, then what is the difference between Washington and Hitler, between Martin Luther King and Mao. --- Kai Chen

我现在将尼克松图书博物馆的网上链锁贴在这里。 尼克松对“世界领袖”的定义是他是否对世界的变化产生过作用。 这种定义在性质上是彻头彻尾的虚无和毫无价值取向的。 今天奥巴马同样高叫着“改变”。 但是向哪儿改变？ （中国专制文化“虚无”的癌症已经扩散到了世界的每一个角落包括美国。）我们究竟要一个强权交接的“变化”还是要自由？ 我们活着只是为了呼吸还是为了自由、尊严与幸福？ 人们的道德盲点在今天美国政治文化的变态腐败中到达了一个新的恶界。 如果我们只追求“变化”（朝代循环），那华盛顿与希特勒、马丁路德.金与毛泽东便没有任何区别。 --- 陈凯

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

What kind of difference has Mao made to the world?
毛对世界进步有何贡献？

Supplemental information on Nixon Library website:

http://www.nixonlibraryfoundation.org/in...manentGalleries

World Leaders 世界领袖部

World Leaders presentation features priceless gifts presented to President and Mrs. Nixon by heads of state and government from all over the world, and ten life-size statues of world leaders who met President Nixon's criterion for great leadership: "Did they make a difference?"

（翻译： 世界领袖部陈列了许多宝贵的外国首脑与政府赠与尼克松总统夫妇的礼物及十个真人大小的世界领袖塑像。 他们是根据尼克松本人对领袖标准的要求而设立的。 那就是：“由于他们的存在世界改变了吗？")

The world leaders represented are:

Mao Tse-Tung and Chou En-lai, China
Nikita Khrushchev and Leonid Brezhnev, USSR
Anwar el-Sadat, Egypt
Golda Meir, Israel
Winston Churchill, Great Britain
Konrad Adenauer, West Germany
Shigeru Yoshida, Japan
Charles deGaulle, France