邓力群预言中国遍地是贪官、到处是妓女，性病...
邓小平在80年代中央理论务虚会上有过这样一番讲话：
邓力群同志做了一个梦：他说他梦到中国遍地是贪官。胡扯！我们的干部都是共产党人，是我们亲手提拔的，即使有点官僚主义，也到不了贪官的份上，再说，还有公检法么。如果真是那样，我们的改革就出了问题了。
他还说：梦到了中国会有资产阶级。不可能！我们49年就消灭了资产阶级，搞社会主义建设，怎么会有资产阶级呢？阶级斗争还没有搞完？文革思想！我们应该让一部份人先富起来，他们会去帮助落后的人们，最后达到共同富裕。咱们孩子们都是从小受共产主义教育的，他们会去帮助别人的。我放心！
邓力群同志还梦到：中国有了黑社会。荒唐！香港，台湾才会有呢。我们消灭黑社会31年了，中国现在不会有，将来富裕了也不会有。否则，我们的改革真就出了问题了。
邓力群同志还梦到：有钱人杀人，逍遥法外，穷人有苦无处诉。共产党员脱离群众。不可能！我们党在文革中才会脱离群众，现在改革了，党的工作会越来越好，共产党员离群众会越来越近的。实践会检验这点的。
邓力群同志又梦到：工人失业了，下岗了。资本家回来了搞剥削。农民没有地种。人民受二茬罪。这不荒唐吗。我们现在的工作是太多，还怕工人不够呢。粮食都不够，农民怎么没有地种呢？要是真这样，我们的改革就走上邪路了。
最可笑的是邓力群同志还梦到：中国到处是妓女，性病，穷人把女儿送进地狱。我看，邓力群同志太过分了。我不会连蒋介石都不如吧。共产党早就消灭性病了。主席，总理虽然不在了，可是我还在，陈云在，这么多老同志还在，难到说无数先烈换来的社会主义会葬送在我们手里吗？实践会检验真理。说什么也没有用，如果改革改掉了社会主义，我邓小平就是历史的罪人。
历史的实践验证：
邓力群的预言真伟大啊！邓力群不愧为当代最伟大的预言家！！
注：邓小平这个讲话虽然篇幅很短，却是一份包括所有重大历史问题的重要文件。
其一，邓小平这个讲话极其深刻地概括了文革时代，是一个官员“事事要看群众脸色的时代”，这个概括极其准确，是30年来对文革性质最为准确最为深刻的历史概括。连邓小平这个级别的官员都要“事事看群众脸色”，一般官员更是可想而知。所以当邓小平上台后宣布永远不搞群众运动时，中国广大官员和文化精英激动得热泪横流，对邓小平爱到了极处，同时也对群众运动恨到了极处，中国老百姓的历史祸根便从此开始生根发芽，最终成长为遮天蔽日的残暴大树。
其二，邓小平这个讲话以他和刘少奇的实际遭遇，展示了文革灭绝人性的残酷迫害，就是“虽然还有车，有秘书，有厨房，但是没有工作了”。文革结束后，这种灭绝人性的残酷迫害便随之消失，后来被打倒的江青也就幸运地躲过了此类残酷迫害，十分幸福地死在了监狱里。所以30年来中国改革精英一直咒骂江青野蛮专制，歌颂邓小平文明民主。
其三，邓小平这个讲话揭示了中国改革是砍腿卖拐的“致错改革”，即先砍断你的大腿，再卖给你双拐，你就不得不买，并且买后还会如同范伟那样感谢赵本山。中国改革第一步是全面恢复苏联官僚体制，彻底铲除毛泽东的社会主义体制；由于僵化保守的官僚特权体制根本无法正常运行，自然便形成了全面引进西方资本主义的第二步改革要求。我们在《738亿，挑战和谐社会的惊天大案》等文章中，专门分析了如何把国有企业弄到半死不活地步然后再加以侵吞的改革四个阶段，有兴趣的读者不妨看一看。把原本一个好端端的事物弄得弊端丛生、难以为继，然后再以改革的名义据为己有，是中国改革最终沦为抢劫的重要原因。通钢工人阶级的愤怒就是由此形成的。
其四，邓小平这个讲话说如果改革改掉了社会主义，他就是历史的罪人。为了不让邓小平成为历史罪人，于是社会主义便失去了固定含义，无论做什么和怎么做，都是社会主义。中央党校那几个教授天天撇着嘴斜着眼地与社会叫板：“哼，虽然我们说不出什么是社会主义，但是从小平同志那里，我们对什么是社会主义以及怎样建设社会主义，有了全新的理解”这个故作禅机的胡言乱语，已成为中央党校教授的经典语言。
这是我们粗略看到的邓小平讲话中所包含的四个重大理论和实际问题，相信大家能够从中发现更多重大理论和实际问题。下面是邓小平讲话全文。
邓小平在80年代中央理论务虚会上的讲话（全文）
来的都是老同志啊。文革十年大家受苦了。已经平反的同志们要努力工作，还没有平反的同志再等待一下，耀邦同志正在做这件工作。同志们再耐心等待一下，再过几年，情况就更好了。象过去那样，大家无法正常工作，事事看群众脸色的时代过去了。造反派们要镇压，有一个，抓一个。留着捣乱。今天我讲两个问题：文革和改革。
毛主席搞的文革从理论到实践都是错的。大家都是过来人，亲身体会了。
我和少奇，66年被打倒。虽然还有车，有秘书，有厨房，但是没有工作了。群众开批判会，做检讨。我是50岁的人了，革命了一辈子。我革命的时候，王洪文还没出生呢。更重要的是，无法保护好我们的子女了。大家都知道，我的儿子在北大摔断了腿。他毛泽东的儿子虽然死在朝鲜战场，我的儿子也是文革中光荣负伤。剑英同志跟我说，再不把四人帮抓起来，我们无法过好晚年了。对啊。我们要彻底否定文革，没有人会不同意的。
毛主席发动文革是从反修防修角度出发的，用意是好的，但多余。少奇同志和我什么时候说要搞资本主义了？“造不如买，买不如租”也好，奖金鼓励也好，是为了建设社会主义。我们搞的，永远不会把中国引上资本主义道路。只会让中国在社会主义的道路上蒸蒸日上。我说没有用，实践会检验的。少奇曾跟我说：“如果我的路线真的把中国带上资本主义道路，群众斗垮了我，我都认了。”
我们打了那么多仗，无数先烈的鲜血换来了今天。多少同志们都是高喊共产主义万岁牺牲的。我的一个战士牺牲时跟我说：“邓政委，一定要实现共产主义！” 我说：“你放心，我一定要让中国富裕起来。”７４年，评《水浒》，江青在政治局讲：“你邓小平就是宋江。毛主席带领我们革命反对帝国主义，你会等主席百年以后投降帝国主义。”胡说！我不会！如果有一天，我们抛弃第三世界朋友，和帝国主义同流合污，我们的改革就上了邪路了。如果有一天帝国主义往我们头上扔炸弹，我们的改革就上了邪路了。如果有一天帝国主义在我们的领土上胡作非为，我们的改革就上了邪路了。如果有一天美国人背弃上海公报，重新支持台湾，我们的政策就出问题了。但是这一切都不会发生，实践会检验的。
改革才是出路，分成两步走。
第一，回到56年八大的路线上来，也就是我和少奇同志代表的路线。
第二，向世界开放，欢迎外国人来投资。有人怕这怕那，杞人忧天嘛。有少奇同志的书在，有我人在，不会出问题的。
有一个同志做了一个梦：他说他梦到中国遍地是贪官。胡扯！我们的干部都是共产党人，是我们亲手提拔的，即使有点官僚主义，也到不了贪官的份上，再说，还有公检法么。如果真是那样，我们的改革就出了问题了。
他还说：梦到了中国会有资产阶级。不能！我们49年就消灭了资产阶级，搞社会主义建设，怎么会有资产阶级呢？阶级斗争还没有搞完？文革思想！
我们应该让一部份人先富起来，他们会去帮助落后的人们，最后达到共同富裕。咱们孩子们都是从小受共产主义教育的，他们会去帮助别人的。我放心！
那个同志还梦到：中国有了黑社会。荒唐！香港，台湾才会有呢。我们消灭黑社会31年了，中国现在不会有，将来富裕了也不会有。否则，我们的改革真就出了问题了。
那个同志还梦到：有钱人杀人，逍遥法外，穷人有苦无处诉。共产党员脱离群众。不可能！我们党在文革中才会脱离群众，现在改革了，党的工作会越来越好，共产党员离群众会越来越近的。实践会检验这点的。
那个同志又梦到：工人失业了，下岗了。资本家回来了搞剥削。农民没有地种。人民受二茬罪。这不荒唐吗。我们现在的工作是太多，还怕工人不够呢。粮食都不够，农民怎么没有地种呢？要是真这样，我们的改革就走上邪路了。
最可笑的是那个同志还梦到：中国到处是妓女，性病，穷人把女儿送进地狱。我看，他太过分了。我不会连蒋介石都不如吧。共产党早就消灭性病了。主席，总理虽然不在了，可是我还在，陈云在，这么多老同志还在，难到说无数先烈换来的社会主义会葬送在我们手里吗？
实践会检验真理。说什么也没有用，如果改革改掉了社会主义，我就是历史的罪人！
Monday 31 October 2011
The Lies Behind the West's War on Libya
The Lies Behind the West's War on Libya
By Jean-Paul Pougala
April 21, 2011 "Information Clearing House" -- It was Gaddafi’s Libya that offered all of Africa its first revolution in modern times – connecting the entire continent by telephone, television, radio broadcasting and several other technological applications such as telemedicine and distance teaching. And thanks to the WMAX radio bridge, a low cost connection was made available across the continent, including in rural areas.
It began in 1992, when 45 African nations established RASCOM (Regional African Satellite Communication Organization) so that Africa would have its own satellite and slash communication costs in the continent. This was a time when phone calls to and from Africa were the most expensive in the world because of the annual US$500 million fee pocketed by Europe for the use of its satellites like Intelsat for phone conversations, including those within the same country.
An African satellite only cost a onetime payment of US$400 million and the continent no longer had to pay a US$500 million annual lease. Which banker wouldn’t finance such a project? But the problem remained – how can slaves, seeking to free themselves from their master’s exploitation ask the master’s help to achieve that freedom? Not surprisingly, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the USA, Europe only made vague promises for 14 years. Gaddafi put an end to these futile pleas to the western ‘benefactors’ with their exorbitant interest rates. The Libyan guide put US$300 million on the table; the African Development Bank added US$50 million more and the West African Development Bank a further US$27 million – and that’s how Africa got its first communications satellite on 26 December 2007.
China and Russia followed suit and shared their technology and helped launch satellites for South Africa, Nigeria, Angola, Algeria and a second African satellite was launched in July 2010. The first totally indigenously built satellite and manufactured on African soil, in Algeria, is set for 2020. This satellite is aimed at competing with the best in the world, but at ten times less the cost, a real challenge.
This is how a symbolic gesture of a mere US$300 million changed the life of an entire continent. Gaddafi’s Libya cost the West, not just depriving it of US$500 million per year but the billions of dollars in debt and interest that the initial loan would generate for years to come and in an exponential manner, thereby helping maintain an occult system in order to plunder the continent.
African Monetary Fund, African Central Bank, African Investment Bank
The US$30 billion frozen by Mr Obama belong to the Libyan Central Bank and had been earmarked as the Libyan contribution to three key projects which would add the finishing touches to the African federation – the African
Investment Bank in Syrte, Libya, the establishment in 2011 of the African Monetary Fund to be based in Yaounde with a US$42 billion capital fund and the Abuja-based African Central Bank in Nigeria which when it starts printing African money will ring the death knell for the CFA franc through which Paris has been able to maintain its hold on some African countries for the last fifty years. It is easy to understand the French wrath against Gaddafi.
The African Monetary Fund is expected to totally supplant the African activities of the International Monetary Fund which, with only US$25 billion, was able to bring an entire continent to its knees and make it swallow questionable privatisation like forcing African countries to move from public to private monopolies. No surprise then that on 16-17 December 2010, the Africans unanimously rejected attempts by Western countries to join the African Monetary Fund, saying it was open only to African nations.
It is increasingly obvious that after Libya, the western coalition will go after Algeria, because apart from its huge energy resources, the country has cash reserves of around €150 billion. This is what lures the countries that are bombing Libya and they all have one thing in common – they are practically bankrupt. The USA alone, has a staggering debt of $US14,000 billion, France, Great Britain and Italy each have a US$2,000 billion public deficit compared to less than US$400 billion in public debt for 46 African countries combined.
Inciting spurious wars in Africa in the hope that this will revitalise their economies which are sinking ever more into the doldrums will ultimately hasten the western decline which actually began in 1884 during the notorious Berlin Conference. As the American economist Adam Smith predicted in 1865 when he publicly backed Abraham Lincoln for the abolition of slavery, ‘the economy of any country which relies on the slavery of blacks is destined to descend into hell the day those countries awaken’.
Regional Unity as an Obstacle to the Creation of a United States of Africa
To destabilise and destroy the African union which was veering dangerously (for the West) towards a United States of Africa under the guiding hand of Gaddafi, the European Union first tried, unsuccessfully, to create the Union for the Mediterranean (UPM). North Africa somehow had to be cut off from the rest of Africa, using the old tired racist clichés of the 18th and 19th centuries ,which claimed that Africans of Arab origin were more evolved and civilised than the rest of the continent. This failed because Gaddafi refused to buy into it. He soon understood what game was being played when
only a handful of African countries were invited to join the Mediterranean grouping without informing the African Union but inviting all 27 members of the European Union.
Without the driving force behind the African Federation, the UPM failed even before it began, still-born with Sarkozy as president and Mubarak as vice president. The French foreign minister, Alain Juppe is now attempting to re-launch the idea, banking no doubt on the fall of Gaddafi. What African leaders fail to understand is that as long as the European Union continues to finance the African Union, the status quo will remain, because no real independence. This is why the European Union has encouraged and financed regional groupings in Africa.
It is obvious that the West African Economic Community (ECOWAS), which has an embassy in Brussels and depends for the bulk of its funding on the European Union, is a vociferous opponent to the African federation. That’s why Lincoln fought in the US war of secession because the moment a group of countries come together in a regional political organisation, it weakens the main group. That is what Europe wanted and the Africans have never understood the game plan, creating a plethora of regional groupings, COMESA, UDEAC, SADC, and the Great Maghreb which never saw the light of day thanks to Gaddafi who understood what was happening.
Gaddafi, the African Who Cleansed the Continent from the Humiliation of Apartheid
For most Africans, Gaddafi is a generous man, a humanist, known for his unselfish support for the struggle against the racist regime in South Africa. If he had been an egotist, he wouldn’t have risked the wrath of the West to help the ANC both militarily and financially in the fight against apartheid. This was why Mandela, soon after his release from 27 years in jail, decided to break the UN embargo and travel to Libya on 23 October 1997. For five long years, no plane could touch down in Libya because of the embargo. One needed to take a plane to the Tunisian city of Jerba and continue by road for five hours to reach Ben Gardane, cross the border and continue on a desert road for three hours before reaching Tripoli. The other solution was to go through Malta, and take a night ferry on ill-maintained boats to the Libyan coast. A hellish journey for a whole people, simply to punish one man.
Mandela didn’t mince his words when the former US president Bill Clinton said the visit was an ‘unwelcome’ one – ‘No country can claim to be the policeman of the world and no state can dictate to another what it should do’. He added – ‘Those that yesterday were friends of our enemies have the gall today to tell me not to visit my brother Gaddafi, they are advising us to be ungrateful and forget our friends of the past.’
Indeed, the West still considered the South African racists to be their brothers who needed to be protected. That’s why the members of the ANC, including Nelson Mandela, were considered to be dangerous terrorists. It was only on 2 July 2008, that the US Congress finally voted a law to remove the name of Nelson Mandela and his ANC comrades from their black list, not because they realised how stupid that list was but because they wanted to mark Mandela’s 90th birthday. If the West was truly sorry for its past support for Mandela’s enemies and really sincere when they name streets and places after him, how can they continue to wage war against someone who helped Mandela and his people to be victorious, Gaddafi?
Are Those Who Want to Export Democracy Themselves Democrats?
And what if Gaddafi’s Libya were more democratic than the USA, France, Britain and other countries waging war to export democracy to Libya? On 19 March 2003, President George Bush began bombing Iraq under the pretext of bringing democracy. On 19 March 2011, exactly eight years later to the day, it was the French president’s turn to rain down bombs over Libya, once again claiming it was to bring democracy. Nobel peace prize-winner and US President Obama says unleashing cruise missiles from submarines is to oust the dictator and introduce democracy.
The question that anyone with even minimum intelligence cannot help asking is the following: Are countries like France, England, the USA, Italy, Norway, Denmark, Poland who defend their right to bomb Libya on the strength of their self proclaimed democratic status really democratic? If yes, are they more democratic than Gaddafi’s Libya? The answer in fact is a resounding NO, for the plain and simple reason that democracy doesn’t exist. This isn’t a personal opinion, but a quote from someone whose native town Geneva, hosts the bulk of UN institutions. The quote is from Jean Jacques Rousseau, born in Geneva in 1712 and who writes in chapter four of the third book of the famous Social Contract that ‘there never was a true democracy and there never will be.’
Rousseau sets out the following four conditions for a country to be labelled a democracy and according to these Gaddafi’s Libya is far more democratic than the USA, France and the others claiming to export democracy:
1. The State: The bigger a country, the less democratic it can be. According to Rousseau, the state has to be extremely small so that people can come together and know each other. Before asking people to vote, one must ensure that everybody knows everyone else, otherwise voting will be an act without any democratic basis, a simulacrum of democracy to elect a dictator.
The Libyan state is based on a system of tribal allegiances, which by definition group people together in small entities. The democratic spirit is much more present in a tribe, a village than in a big country, simply because people know each other, share a common life rhythm which involves a kind of self-regulation or even self-censorship in that the reactions and
counter reactions of other members impacts on the group.
From this perspective, it would appear that Libya fits Rousseau’s conditions better than the USA, France and Great Britain, all highly urbanised societies where most neighbours don’t even say hello to each other and therefore don’t know each other even if they have lived side by side for twenty years. These countries leapfrogged leaped into the next stage – ‘the vote’ – which has been cleverly sanctified to obfuscate the fact that voting on the future of the country is useless if the voter doesn’t know the other citizens. This has been pushed to ridiculous limits with voting rights being given to people living abroad. Communicating with and amongst each other is a precondition for any democratic debate before an election.
2. Simplicity in customs and behavioural patterns are also essential if one is to avoid spending the bulk of the time debating legal and judicial procedures in order to deal with the multitude of conflicts of interest inevitable in a large and complex society. Western countries define themselves as civilised nations with a more complex social structure whereas Libya is described as a primitive country with a simple set of customs. This aspect too indicates that Libya responds better to Rousseau’s democratic criteria than all those trying to give lessons in democracy. Conflicts in complex societies are most often won by those with more power, which is why the rich manage to avoid prison because they can afford to hire top lawyers and instead arrange for state repression to be directed against someone one who stole a banana in a supermarket rather than a financial criminal who ruined a bank. In the city of New York for example where 75 per cent of the population is white, 80 per cent of management posts are occupied by whites who make up only 20 per cent of incarcerated people.
3. Equality in status and wealth: A look at the Forbes 2010 list shows who the richest people in each of the countries currently bombing Libya are and the difference between them and those who earn the lowest salaries in those nations; a similar exercise on Libya will reveal that in terms of wealth distribution, Libya has much more to teach than those fighting it now, and not the contrary. So here too, using Rousseau’s criteria, Libya is more democratic than the nations pompously pretending to bring democracy. In the USA, 5 per cent of the population owns 60 per cent of the national wealth, making it the most unequal and unbalanced society in the world.
4. No luxuries: according to Rousseau there can’t be any luxury if there is to be democracy. Luxury, he says, makes wealth a necessity which then becomes a virtue in itself, it, and not the welfare of the people becomes the goal to be reached at all cost, ‘Luxury corrupts both the rich and the poor, the one through possession and the other through envy; it makes the nation soft and prey to vanity; it distances people from the State and enslaves them, making them a slave to opinion.’
Is there more luxury in France than in Libya? The reports on employees committing suicide because of stressful working conditions even in public or semi-public companies, all in the name of maximising profit for a minority and keeping them in luxury, happen in the West, not in Libya.
The American sociologist C. Wright Mills wrote in 1956 that American democracy was a ‘dictatorship of the elite’. According to Mills, the USA is not a democracy because it is money that talks during elections and not the people. The results of each election are the expression of the voice of money and not the voice of the people. After Bush senior and Bush junior, they are already talking about a younger Bush for the 2012 Republican primaries. Moreover, as Max Weber pointed out, since political power is dependent on the bureaucracy, the US has 43 million bureaucrats and military personnel who effectively rule the country but without being elected and are not accountable to the people for their actions. One person (a rich one) is elected, but the real power lies with the caste of the wealthy who then get nominated to be ambassadors, generals, etc.
How many people in these self-proclaimed democracies know that Peru’s constitution prohibits an outgoing president from seeking a second consecutive mandate? How many know that in Guatemala, not only can an outgoing president not seek re-election to the same post, no one from that person’s family can aspire to the top job either? Or that Rwanda is the only country in the world that has 56 per cent female parliamentarians? How many people know that in the 2007 CIA index, four of the world’s best-governed countries are African? That the top prize goes to Equatorial Guinea whose public debt represents only 1.14 per cent of GDP?
Rousseau maintains that civil wars, revolts and rebellions are the ingredients of the beginning of democracy. Because democracy is not an end, but a permanent process of the reaffirmation of the natural rights of human beings which in countries all over the world (without exception) are trampled upon by a handful of men and women who have hijacked the power of the people to perpetuate their supremacy. There are here and there groups of people who have usurped the term ‘democracy’ – instead of it being an ideal towards which one strives it has become a label to be appropriated or a slogan which is used by people who can shout louder than others. If a country is calm, like France or the USA, that is to say without any rebellions, it only means, from Rousseau’s perspective, that the dictatorial system is sufficiently repressive to pre-empt any revolt.
It wouldn’t be a bad thing if the Libyans revolted. What is bad is to affirm that people stoically accept a system that represses them all over the world without reacting. And Rousseau concludes: ‘Malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium – translation – If gods were people, they would govern themselves democratically. Such a perfect government is not applicable to human beings.’ To claim that one is killing Libyans for their own good is a hoax.
What Lessons for Africa?
After 500 years of a profoundly unequal relationship with the West, it is clear that we don’t have the same criteria of what is good and bad. We have deeply divergent interests. How can one not deplore the ‘yes’ votes from three sub-Saharan countries (Nigeria, South Africa and Gabon) for resolution 1973 that inaugurated the latest form of colonisation baptised ‘the protection of peoples’, which legitimises the racist theories that have informed Europeans since the 18th century and according to which North Africa has nothing to do with sub-Saharan Africa, that North Africa is more evolved, cultivated and civilised than the rest of Africa?
It is as if Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Algeria were not part of Africa, Even the United Nations seems to ignore the role of the African Union in the affairs of member states. The aim is to isolate sub Saharan African countries to better isolate and control them. Indeed, Algeria (US$16 billion) and Libya (US$10 billion ) together contribute 62 per cent of the US$42 billion which constitute the capital of the African Monetary Fund (AMF). The biggest and most populous country in sub Saharan Africa, Nigeria, followed by South Africa are far behind with only 3 billion dollars each.
It is disconcerting to say the least that for the first time in the history of the United Nations, war has been declared against a people without having explored the slightest possibility of a peaceful solution to the crisis. Does Africa really belong anymore to this organisation? Nigeria and South Africa are prepared to vote ‘Yes’ to everything the West asks because they naively believe the vague promises of a permanent seat at the Security Council with similar veto rights. They both forget that France has no power to offer anything. If it did, Mitterand would have long done the needful for Helmut Kohl’s Germany.
A reform of the United Nations is not on the agenda. The only way to make a point is to use the Chinese method – all 50 African nations should quit the United Nations and only return if their longstanding demand is finally met, a seat for the entire African federation or nothing. This non-violent method is the only weapon of justice available to the poor and weak that we are. We should simply quit the United Nations because this organisation, by its very structure and hierarchy, is at the service of the most powerful.
We should leave the United Nations to register our rejection of a worldview based on the annihilation of those who are weaker. They are free to continue as before but at least we will not be party to it and say we agree when we were never asked for our opinion. And even when we expressed our point of view, like we did on Saturday 19 March in Nouakchott, when we opposed the military action, our opinion was simply ignored and the bombs started falling on the African people.
Today’s events are reminiscent of what happened with China in the past. Today, one recognises the Ouattara government, the rebel government in Libya, like one did at the end of the Second World War with China. The so-called international community chose Taiwan to be the sole representative of the Chinese people instead of Mao’s China. It took 26 years when on 25 October 1971, for the UN to pass resolution 2758 which all Africans should read to put an end to human folly. China was admitted and on its terms – it refused to be a member if it didn’t have a veto right. When the demand was met and the resolution tabled, it still took a year for the Chinese foreign minister to respond in writing to the UN Secretary General on 29 September 1972, a letter which didn’t say yes or thank you but spelt out guarantees required for China’s dignity to be respected.
What does Africa hope to achieve from the United Nations without playing hard ball? We saw how in Cote d’Ivoire a UN bureaucrat considers himself to be above the constitution of the country. We entered this organisation by agreeing to be slaves and to believe that we will be invited to dine at the same table and eat from plates we ourselves washed is not just credulous, it is stupid.
When the African Union endorsed Ouattara’s victory and glossed over contrary reports from its own electoral observers simply to please our former masters, how can we expect to be respected? When South African president Zuma declares that Ouattara hasn’t won the elections and then says the exact opposite during a trip to Paris, one is entitled to question the credibility of these leaders who claim to represent and speak on behalf of a billion Africans.
Africa’s strength and real freedom will only come if it can take properly thought out actions and assume the consequences. Dignity and respect come with a price tag. Are we prepared to pay it? Otherwise, our place is in the kitchen and in the toilets in order to make others comfortable.
By Jean-Paul Pougala
April 21, 2011 "Information Clearing House" -- It was Gaddafi’s Libya that offered all of Africa its first revolution in modern times – connecting the entire continent by telephone, television, radio broadcasting and several other technological applications such as telemedicine and distance teaching. And thanks to the WMAX radio bridge, a low cost connection was made available across the continent, including in rural areas.
It began in 1992, when 45 African nations established RASCOM (Regional African Satellite Communication Organization) so that Africa would have its own satellite and slash communication costs in the continent. This was a time when phone calls to and from Africa were the most expensive in the world because of the annual US$500 million fee pocketed by Europe for the use of its satellites like Intelsat for phone conversations, including those within the same country.
An African satellite only cost a onetime payment of US$400 million and the continent no longer had to pay a US$500 million annual lease. Which banker wouldn’t finance such a project? But the problem remained – how can slaves, seeking to free themselves from their master’s exploitation ask the master’s help to achieve that freedom? Not surprisingly, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the USA, Europe only made vague promises for 14 years. Gaddafi put an end to these futile pleas to the western ‘benefactors’ with their exorbitant interest rates. The Libyan guide put US$300 million on the table; the African Development Bank added US$50 million more and the West African Development Bank a further US$27 million – and that’s how Africa got its first communications satellite on 26 December 2007.
China and Russia followed suit and shared their technology and helped launch satellites for South Africa, Nigeria, Angola, Algeria and a second African satellite was launched in July 2010. The first totally indigenously built satellite and manufactured on African soil, in Algeria, is set for 2020. This satellite is aimed at competing with the best in the world, but at ten times less the cost, a real challenge.
This is how a symbolic gesture of a mere US$300 million changed the life of an entire continent. Gaddafi’s Libya cost the West, not just depriving it of US$500 million per year but the billions of dollars in debt and interest that the initial loan would generate for years to come and in an exponential manner, thereby helping maintain an occult system in order to plunder the continent.
African Monetary Fund, African Central Bank, African Investment Bank
The US$30 billion frozen by Mr Obama belong to the Libyan Central Bank and had been earmarked as the Libyan contribution to three key projects which would add the finishing touches to the African federation – the African
Investment Bank in Syrte, Libya, the establishment in 2011 of the African Monetary Fund to be based in Yaounde with a US$42 billion capital fund and the Abuja-based African Central Bank in Nigeria which when it starts printing African money will ring the death knell for the CFA franc through which Paris has been able to maintain its hold on some African countries for the last fifty years. It is easy to understand the French wrath against Gaddafi.
The African Monetary Fund is expected to totally supplant the African activities of the International Monetary Fund which, with only US$25 billion, was able to bring an entire continent to its knees and make it swallow questionable privatisation like forcing African countries to move from public to private monopolies. No surprise then that on 16-17 December 2010, the Africans unanimously rejected attempts by Western countries to join the African Monetary Fund, saying it was open only to African nations.
It is increasingly obvious that after Libya, the western coalition will go after Algeria, because apart from its huge energy resources, the country has cash reserves of around €150 billion. This is what lures the countries that are bombing Libya and they all have one thing in common – they are practically bankrupt. The USA alone, has a staggering debt of $US14,000 billion, France, Great Britain and Italy each have a US$2,000 billion public deficit compared to less than US$400 billion in public debt for 46 African countries combined.
Inciting spurious wars in Africa in the hope that this will revitalise their economies which are sinking ever more into the doldrums will ultimately hasten the western decline which actually began in 1884 during the notorious Berlin Conference. As the American economist Adam Smith predicted in 1865 when he publicly backed Abraham Lincoln for the abolition of slavery, ‘the economy of any country which relies on the slavery of blacks is destined to descend into hell the day those countries awaken’.
Regional Unity as an Obstacle to the Creation of a United States of Africa
To destabilise and destroy the African union which was veering dangerously (for the West) towards a United States of Africa under the guiding hand of Gaddafi, the European Union first tried, unsuccessfully, to create the Union for the Mediterranean (UPM). North Africa somehow had to be cut off from the rest of Africa, using the old tired racist clichés of the 18th and 19th centuries ,which claimed that Africans of Arab origin were more evolved and civilised than the rest of the continent. This failed because Gaddafi refused to buy into it. He soon understood what game was being played when
only a handful of African countries were invited to join the Mediterranean grouping without informing the African Union but inviting all 27 members of the European Union.
Without the driving force behind the African Federation, the UPM failed even before it began, still-born with Sarkozy as president and Mubarak as vice president. The French foreign minister, Alain Juppe is now attempting to re-launch the idea, banking no doubt on the fall of Gaddafi. What African leaders fail to understand is that as long as the European Union continues to finance the African Union, the status quo will remain, because no real independence. This is why the European Union has encouraged and financed regional groupings in Africa.
It is obvious that the West African Economic Community (ECOWAS), which has an embassy in Brussels and depends for the bulk of its funding on the European Union, is a vociferous opponent to the African federation. That’s why Lincoln fought in the US war of secession because the moment a group of countries come together in a regional political organisation, it weakens the main group. That is what Europe wanted and the Africans have never understood the game plan, creating a plethora of regional groupings, COMESA, UDEAC, SADC, and the Great Maghreb which never saw the light of day thanks to Gaddafi who understood what was happening.
Gaddafi, the African Who Cleansed the Continent from the Humiliation of Apartheid
For most Africans, Gaddafi is a generous man, a humanist, known for his unselfish support for the struggle against the racist regime in South Africa. If he had been an egotist, he wouldn’t have risked the wrath of the West to help the ANC both militarily and financially in the fight against apartheid. This was why Mandela, soon after his release from 27 years in jail, decided to break the UN embargo and travel to Libya on 23 October 1997. For five long years, no plane could touch down in Libya because of the embargo. One needed to take a plane to the Tunisian city of Jerba and continue by road for five hours to reach Ben Gardane, cross the border and continue on a desert road for three hours before reaching Tripoli. The other solution was to go through Malta, and take a night ferry on ill-maintained boats to the Libyan coast. A hellish journey for a whole people, simply to punish one man.
Mandela didn’t mince his words when the former US president Bill Clinton said the visit was an ‘unwelcome’ one – ‘No country can claim to be the policeman of the world and no state can dictate to another what it should do’. He added – ‘Those that yesterday were friends of our enemies have the gall today to tell me not to visit my brother Gaddafi, they are advising us to be ungrateful and forget our friends of the past.’
Indeed, the West still considered the South African racists to be their brothers who needed to be protected. That’s why the members of the ANC, including Nelson Mandela, were considered to be dangerous terrorists. It was only on 2 July 2008, that the US Congress finally voted a law to remove the name of Nelson Mandela and his ANC comrades from their black list, not because they realised how stupid that list was but because they wanted to mark Mandela’s 90th birthday. If the West was truly sorry for its past support for Mandela’s enemies and really sincere when they name streets and places after him, how can they continue to wage war against someone who helped Mandela and his people to be victorious, Gaddafi?
Are Those Who Want to Export Democracy Themselves Democrats?
And what if Gaddafi’s Libya were more democratic than the USA, France, Britain and other countries waging war to export democracy to Libya? On 19 March 2003, President George Bush began bombing Iraq under the pretext of bringing democracy. On 19 March 2011, exactly eight years later to the day, it was the French president’s turn to rain down bombs over Libya, once again claiming it was to bring democracy. Nobel peace prize-winner and US President Obama says unleashing cruise missiles from submarines is to oust the dictator and introduce democracy.
The question that anyone with even minimum intelligence cannot help asking is the following: Are countries like France, England, the USA, Italy, Norway, Denmark, Poland who defend their right to bomb Libya on the strength of their self proclaimed democratic status really democratic? If yes, are they more democratic than Gaddafi’s Libya? The answer in fact is a resounding NO, for the plain and simple reason that democracy doesn’t exist. This isn’t a personal opinion, but a quote from someone whose native town Geneva, hosts the bulk of UN institutions. The quote is from Jean Jacques Rousseau, born in Geneva in 1712 and who writes in chapter four of the third book of the famous Social Contract that ‘there never was a true democracy and there never will be.’
Rousseau sets out the following four conditions for a country to be labelled a democracy and according to these Gaddafi’s Libya is far more democratic than the USA, France and the others claiming to export democracy:
1. The State: The bigger a country, the less democratic it can be. According to Rousseau, the state has to be extremely small so that people can come together and know each other. Before asking people to vote, one must ensure that everybody knows everyone else, otherwise voting will be an act without any democratic basis, a simulacrum of democracy to elect a dictator.
The Libyan state is based on a system of tribal allegiances, which by definition group people together in small entities. The democratic spirit is much more present in a tribe, a village than in a big country, simply because people know each other, share a common life rhythm which involves a kind of self-regulation or even self-censorship in that the reactions and
counter reactions of other members impacts on the group.
From this perspective, it would appear that Libya fits Rousseau’s conditions better than the USA, France and Great Britain, all highly urbanised societies where most neighbours don’t even say hello to each other and therefore don’t know each other even if they have lived side by side for twenty years. These countries leapfrogged leaped into the next stage – ‘the vote’ – which has been cleverly sanctified to obfuscate the fact that voting on the future of the country is useless if the voter doesn’t know the other citizens. This has been pushed to ridiculous limits with voting rights being given to people living abroad. Communicating with and amongst each other is a precondition for any democratic debate before an election.
2. Simplicity in customs and behavioural patterns are also essential if one is to avoid spending the bulk of the time debating legal and judicial procedures in order to deal with the multitude of conflicts of interest inevitable in a large and complex society. Western countries define themselves as civilised nations with a more complex social structure whereas Libya is described as a primitive country with a simple set of customs. This aspect too indicates that Libya responds better to Rousseau’s democratic criteria than all those trying to give lessons in democracy. Conflicts in complex societies are most often won by those with more power, which is why the rich manage to avoid prison because they can afford to hire top lawyers and instead arrange for state repression to be directed against someone one who stole a banana in a supermarket rather than a financial criminal who ruined a bank. In the city of New York for example where 75 per cent of the population is white, 80 per cent of management posts are occupied by whites who make up only 20 per cent of incarcerated people.
3. Equality in status and wealth: A look at the Forbes 2010 list shows who the richest people in each of the countries currently bombing Libya are and the difference between them and those who earn the lowest salaries in those nations; a similar exercise on Libya will reveal that in terms of wealth distribution, Libya has much more to teach than those fighting it now, and not the contrary. So here too, using Rousseau’s criteria, Libya is more democratic than the nations pompously pretending to bring democracy. In the USA, 5 per cent of the population owns 60 per cent of the national wealth, making it the most unequal and unbalanced society in the world.
4. No luxuries: according to Rousseau there can’t be any luxury if there is to be democracy. Luxury, he says, makes wealth a necessity which then becomes a virtue in itself, it, and not the welfare of the people becomes the goal to be reached at all cost, ‘Luxury corrupts both the rich and the poor, the one through possession and the other through envy; it makes the nation soft and prey to vanity; it distances people from the State and enslaves them, making them a slave to opinion.’
Is there more luxury in France than in Libya? The reports on employees committing suicide because of stressful working conditions even in public or semi-public companies, all in the name of maximising profit for a minority and keeping them in luxury, happen in the West, not in Libya.
The American sociologist C. Wright Mills wrote in 1956 that American democracy was a ‘dictatorship of the elite’. According to Mills, the USA is not a democracy because it is money that talks during elections and not the people. The results of each election are the expression of the voice of money and not the voice of the people. After Bush senior and Bush junior, they are already talking about a younger Bush for the 2012 Republican primaries. Moreover, as Max Weber pointed out, since political power is dependent on the bureaucracy, the US has 43 million bureaucrats and military personnel who effectively rule the country but without being elected and are not accountable to the people for their actions. One person (a rich one) is elected, but the real power lies with the caste of the wealthy who then get nominated to be ambassadors, generals, etc.
How many people in these self-proclaimed democracies know that Peru’s constitution prohibits an outgoing president from seeking a second consecutive mandate? How many know that in Guatemala, not only can an outgoing president not seek re-election to the same post, no one from that person’s family can aspire to the top job either? Or that Rwanda is the only country in the world that has 56 per cent female parliamentarians? How many people know that in the 2007 CIA index, four of the world’s best-governed countries are African? That the top prize goes to Equatorial Guinea whose public debt represents only 1.14 per cent of GDP?
Rousseau maintains that civil wars, revolts and rebellions are the ingredients of the beginning of democracy. Because democracy is not an end, but a permanent process of the reaffirmation of the natural rights of human beings which in countries all over the world (without exception) are trampled upon by a handful of men and women who have hijacked the power of the people to perpetuate their supremacy. There are here and there groups of people who have usurped the term ‘democracy’ – instead of it being an ideal towards which one strives it has become a label to be appropriated or a slogan which is used by people who can shout louder than others. If a country is calm, like France or the USA, that is to say without any rebellions, it only means, from Rousseau’s perspective, that the dictatorial system is sufficiently repressive to pre-empt any revolt.
It wouldn’t be a bad thing if the Libyans revolted. What is bad is to affirm that people stoically accept a system that represses them all over the world without reacting. And Rousseau concludes: ‘Malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium – translation – If gods were people, they would govern themselves democratically. Such a perfect government is not applicable to human beings.’ To claim that one is killing Libyans for their own good is a hoax.
What Lessons for Africa?
After 500 years of a profoundly unequal relationship with the West, it is clear that we don’t have the same criteria of what is good and bad. We have deeply divergent interests. How can one not deplore the ‘yes’ votes from three sub-Saharan countries (Nigeria, South Africa and Gabon) for resolution 1973 that inaugurated the latest form of colonisation baptised ‘the protection of peoples’, which legitimises the racist theories that have informed Europeans since the 18th century and according to which North Africa has nothing to do with sub-Saharan Africa, that North Africa is more evolved, cultivated and civilised than the rest of Africa?
It is as if Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Algeria were not part of Africa, Even the United Nations seems to ignore the role of the African Union in the affairs of member states. The aim is to isolate sub Saharan African countries to better isolate and control them. Indeed, Algeria (US$16 billion) and Libya (US$10 billion ) together contribute 62 per cent of the US$42 billion which constitute the capital of the African Monetary Fund (AMF). The biggest and most populous country in sub Saharan Africa, Nigeria, followed by South Africa are far behind with only 3 billion dollars each.
It is disconcerting to say the least that for the first time in the history of the United Nations, war has been declared against a people without having explored the slightest possibility of a peaceful solution to the crisis. Does Africa really belong anymore to this organisation? Nigeria and South Africa are prepared to vote ‘Yes’ to everything the West asks because they naively believe the vague promises of a permanent seat at the Security Council with similar veto rights. They both forget that France has no power to offer anything. If it did, Mitterand would have long done the needful for Helmut Kohl’s Germany.
A reform of the United Nations is not on the agenda. The only way to make a point is to use the Chinese method – all 50 African nations should quit the United Nations and only return if their longstanding demand is finally met, a seat for the entire African federation or nothing. This non-violent method is the only weapon of justice available to the poor and weak that we are. We should simply quit the United Nations because this organisation, by its very structure and hierarchy, is at the service of the most powerful.
We should leave the United Nations to register our rejection of a worldview based on the annihilation of those who are weaker. They are free to continue as before but at least we will not be party to it and say we agree when we were never asked for our opinion. And even when we expressed our point of view, like we did on Saturday 19 March in Nouakchott, when we opposed the military action, our opinion was simply ignored and the bombs started falling on the African people.
Today’s events are reminiscent of what happened with China in the past. Today, one recognises the Ouattara government, the rebel government in Libya, like one did at the end of the Second World War with China. The so-called international community chose Taiwan to be the sole representative of the Chinese people instead of Mao’s China. It took 26 years when on 25 October 1971, for the UN to pass resolution 2758 which all Africans should read to put an end to human folly. China was admitted and on its terms – it refused to be a member if it didn’t have a veto right. When the demand was met and the resolution tabled, it still took a year for the Chinese foreign minister to respond in writing to the UN Secretary General on 29 September 1972, a letter which didn’t say yes or thank you but spelt out guarantees required for China’s dignity to be respected.
What does Africa hope to achieve from the United Nations without playing hard ball? We saw how in Cote d’Ivoire a UN bureaucrat considers himself to be above the constitution of the country. We entered this organisation by agreeing to be slaves and to believe that we will be invited to dine at the same table and eat from plates we ourselves washed is not just credulous, it is stupid.
When the African Union endorsed Ouattara’s victory and glossed over contrary reports from its own electoral observers simply to please our former masters, how can we expect to be respected? When South African president Zuma declares that Ouattara hasn’t won the elections and then says the exact opposite during a trip to Paris, one is entitled to question the credibility of these leaders who claim to represent and speak on behalf of a billion Africans.
Africa’s strength and real freedom will only come if it can take properly thought out actions and assume the consequences. Dignity and respect come with a price tag. Are we prepared to pay it? Otherwise, our place is in the kitchen and in the toilets in order to make others comfortable.
把俄罗斯人的皮挠掉了，下面就露出个蒙古人
英国人过去说 if you scratch a russian, You will find a mongol underneath. 意思是：把俄罗斯人的皮挠掉了，下面就露出个蒙古人。当然这显示了欧洲人对俄罗斯人的傲慢，觉得俄罗斯是个半开化的民族。
从体态上，俄罗斯人兼用欧洲人和蒙古人的特征。他们许多人有淡色的毛发，淡颜色的眼睛，高鼻子，深眼窝，白皮肤，但同时又有亚洲人的宽脸庞，结识的头颅，粗壮的躯干四肢。俄罗斯人爱说自己有宽脊梁，意思是俄罗斯人什么都能忍受。
毕竟蒙古帝国统治了俄罗斯几百年，连沙皇都有蒙古血统。据说Tzar都是蒙语而来，蒙古语“白色的汗”tzagaan khaan，是俄罗斯Tzar的由来。
俄罗斯人在秉性上也和蒙古族人很接近。他们都属于粘血质，缓慢而坚定，先忍让而后爆发的类型。蒙古在成吉思汗时崛起前，受尽金国凌辱，而后一发而不可收拾。后俄罗斯在纳粹闪击战下一溃千里，到后来钳型攻势消灭了纳粹德国精锐，扭转了二战的势态。因此俄罗斯有历史学家说，苏联红色帝国乃是700年前蒙古帝国的精神继承者。
如果你稍加注意，就会发现列宁本人也有不少蒙古人的特征：上眼皮斜压式的单眼皮，高颧骨。实际上列宁有1/4的蒙古族血统，他的祖母就是卡尔梅克蒙古人。列宁曾经自述小时候喝奶奶熬的那种放咸盐的奶茶。
有网友还摘了一段证明金帐汗国对俄罗斯的影响：
从体态上，俄罗斯人兼用欧洲人和蒙古人的特征。他们许多人有淡色的毛发，淡颜色的眼睛，高鼻子，深眼窝，白皮肤，但同时又有亚洲人的宽脸庞，结识的头颅，粗壮的躯干四肢。俄罗斯人爱说自己有宽脊梁，意思是俄罗斯人什么都能忍受。
毕竟蒙古帝国统治了俄罗斯几百年，连沙皇都有蒙古血统。据说Tzar都是蒙语而来，蒙古语“白色的汗”tzagaan khaan，是俄罗斯Tzar的由来。
俄罗斯人在秉性上也和蒙古族人很接近。他们都属于粘血质，缓慢而坚定，先忍让而后爆发的类型。蒙古在成吉思汗时崛起前，受尽金国凌辱，而后一发而不可收拾。后俄罗斯在纳粹闪击战下一溃千里，到后来钳型攻势消灭了纳粹德国精锐，扭转了二战的势态。因此俄罗斯有历史学家说，苏联红色帝国乃是700年前蒙古帝国的精神继承者。
如果你稍加注意，就会发现列宁本人也有不少蒙古人的特征：上眼皮斜压式的单眼皮，高颧骨。实际上列宁有1/4的蒙古族血统，他的祖母就是卡尔梅克蒙古人。列宁曾经自述小时候喝奶奶熬的那种放咸盐的奶茶。
有网友还摘了一段证明金帐汗国对俄罗斯的影响：
中世纪的东方与西方不仅是互通的，而且是互动的，不是单方的沟通和对话，而是双向的沟通和对话，这是这个时代的显著特征。对于理解人类的历史和社会发展的过程和面貌具有着不可估量的价值。金帐汗国的蒙古人后裔——鞑靼人融合到了俄罗斯民族当中。喀山汗国，阿斯特拉罕，西伯利亚汗，克里米亚汗，诺盖汗的蒙古鞑靼贵族们后来都供职于俄罗斯公国，成为许多大公，王，贵族的姓氏起源。从各类文献资料中发现有鞑靼血缘的92个大公，50个王，13个公侯以及300多个贵族姓氏。蒙古——鞑靼人不仅把政治制度，税收制度，海关制度和军事制度传给了俄罗斯人，而且把血统和形式也传给了俄罗斯人。蒙古鞑靼人为俄罗斯贡献了鲍里斯和费德尔*戈杜诺夫两位沙皇。6位皇后：所罗门尼娅*萨布洛娃；叶列娜*格林斯卡娃；伊琳娜*戈杜诺娃；纳塔利娅*纳雷什金娜；马尔法*阿普拉克希娜；叶夫多基娅*萨布罗娃。彼得*奥尔登司机格跟——巴豆含的质子和彼得格根也是俄罗斯著名的圣徒。蒙古——鞑靼人还把驿站和军事战略战术传给了俄罗斯人。如著名的尤里*梅谢尔斯基汗将军，安德烈*谢尔基佐夫，叶尔莫洛夫，多赫图洛夫，马秋什金，莫尔德维诺夫，叶潘钦，比里列夫，日林斯基，谢尔巴切夫等将军们以及科学巨匠们如：门捷列夫，梅奇尼科夫，巴甫洛夫，季米里亚泽夫，历史学家坎捷米尔，卡拉姆津以及极地学家切柳斯金，奇里科夫等人都有蒙古——鞑靼血统。俄罗斯谚语说：“如果深究俄罗斯人，就会出现鞑靼人。”德*迈斯特也曾说过说：“抓伤一个俄罗斯人，就是抓伤一个鞑靼人。”蒙古——鞑靼人对于俄罗斯民族的影响是极其深远的，以至于形成了这样的观点：俄罗斯人是西方的东方人，是东方的西方人。此外蒙古——鞑靼人对于俄罗斯民族的文化和艺术留下了深深的印迹。在俄罗斯文学方面三位最伟大的小说家中的陀思妥耶夫斯基和屠格涅夫就有蒙古——鞑靼血统，也只有蒙古血统的屠格涅夫才能写下《白净草原》这样举世无双的对草原的深刻理解和体验的小说。舞蹈家有乌兰诺娃；安娜*巴浦洛娃都拥有蒙古——鞑靼血统
Wednesday 26 October 2011
利比亚事件的教训 （二） [ 基一哲 ]
利比亚事件的教训 （二） [ 基一哲 ] 于:2011-08-23 07:45:36 复:3543068 总阅:57837
中国报道往往忽略了西方雇佣兵也是西方对外政策的利器，这次在利比亚也比较突出。当然人家也不叫雇佣兵，叫做保安公司（security contractor）。中国在非洲利益最多，其实也可以搞些保安公司，像西方公司那样，招募有军事技能的退役军人，为中国海外商业利益保驾护航，在关键的时候甚至可以为亲中政权提供必要支持。中国这方面应该更有劳力资源优势，海外应该大有作为。
今天英国《独立报》的文章就说，英国军事介入在利比亚反叛的胜利中起了决定作用，英国情报官员去利比亚为反叛领导人充当顾问，帮助组织最后的攻势。英国国防部每日协调通报北约在利比亚的军事行动。另外英国在利比亚搞了6个月的秘密活动，发动全方位攻势，这包括外交官秘密行动，传递假情报和假消息，派遣军事顾问和特种部队。
从3月19日开始，英国皇家海军就发射巡航导弹攻击利比亚政府军的防空阵地。英国皇家空军的飓风战机一直在前线参加攻击。英国外交官说，没有这些地面和空中的行动，卡扎菲的据点不可能被击破。
英国报纸记者还经常在从班加西到的黎波里的路上看到许多操英国口音的英国退伍特种部队军人为私人保安公司工作，他们经常在危险的军事前沿活动。记者还看到许多带着太阳眼镜的欧洲男性组成的小分队，乘坐四轮驱动汽车活动。
《独立报》记者还说，伦敦一直默许利比亚反叛在英国花钱招募英国特种部队退伍军人和有英军背景的人帮助他们培训和做军事顾问。西方许多在卡塔尔和阿联酋的保安公司得到了西方国家给利比亚反叛的资助，这些资金当中相当部分来自被冻结的利比亚海外帐户。
报道还说，英国、法国和意大利向反叛武装提供高科技装备，以便反叛武装能够同北约部队协调进行攻击。所有这些努力都改变了利比亚的战局，打击了卡扎菲部队的士气。在这段时间，英军摧毁了利比亚890个目标，其中包括180辆坦克和装甲车，395座建筑。
中国报道往往忽略了西方雇佣兵也是西方对外政策的利器，这次在利比亚也比较突出。当然人家也不叫雇佣兵，叫做保安公司（security contractor）。中国在非洲利益最多，其实也可以搞些保安公司，像西方公司那样，招募有军事技能的退役军人，为中国海外商业利益保驾护航，在关键的时候甚至可以为亲中政权提供必要支持。中国这方面应该更有劳力资源优势，海外应该大有作为。
今天英国《独立报》的文章就说，英国军事介入在利比亚反叛的胜利中起了决定作用，英国情报官员去利比亚为反叛领导人充当顾问，帮助组织最后的攻势。英国国防部每日协调通报北约在利比亚的军事行动。另外英国在利比亚搞了6个月的秘密活动，发动全方位攻势，这包括外交官秘密行动，传递假情报和假消息，派遣军事顾问和特种部队。
从3月19日开始，英国皇家海军就发射巡航导弹攻击利比亚政府军的防空阵地。英国皇家空军的飓风战机一直在前线参加攻击。英国外交官说，没有这些地面和空中的行动，卡扎菲的据点不可能被击破。
英国报纸记者还经常在从班加西到的黎波里的路上看到许多操英国口音的英国退伍特种部队军人为私人保安公司工作，他们经常在危险的军事前沿活动。记者还看到许多带着太阳眼镜的欧洲男性组成的小分队，乘坐四轮驱动汽车活动。
《独立报》记者还说，伦敦一直默许利比亚反叛在英国花钱招募英国特种部队退伍军人和有英军背景的人帮助他们培训和做军事顾问。西方许多在卡塔尔和阿联酋的保安公司得到了西方国家给利比亚反叛的资助，这些资金当中相当部分来自被冻结的利比亚海外帐户。
报道还说，英国、法国和意大利向反叛武装提供高科技装备，以便反叛武装能够同北约部队协调进行攻击。所有这些努力都改变了利比亚的战局，打击了卡扎菲部队的士气。在这段时间，英军摧毁了利比亚890个目标，其中包括180辆坦克和装甲车，395座建筑。
【讨论】利比亚事件的教训 [ 基一哲 ]
【讨论】利比亚事件的教训 [ 基一哲 ] 于:2011-08-22 10:28:51 主题帖 总阅:57837
北约为利比亚的打砸抢烧分子开路，的黎波里被武装暴徒占领了。 没有天上北约飞机定点轰炸，地面没有英法的特种部队的帮助，利比亚反叛那些乌合之众，可能连一个火力点都拿不下来。
从电视上看，这帮反叛都是吃得很肥壮的年轻人，大多属于“吃饱饭不干事”，“端起碗吃肉放下碗骂人”的，不像是生活在水深火热当中的被压迫者。
利比亚事件对中共的教训可能是，“红色江山万代”传在当今世界很难做到。卡扎菲的家族统治，和中共元老想让太子党接班的本质是一样的。
太子党接班的人才库仅比家族统治大了一点点而已。中共延长统治的出路还在于搞党内民主，扩大统治人才库。
利比亚事件的另外教训应该不是像北约宣扬的那样，是什么民主战胜独裁。这恰恰说明，以美国为首的军事集团，在冷战后没有苏联的制约，越来越肆无忌惮地发动战争，涂炭第三世界国家。
今年是苏联解体20周年，利比亚事件，和前面的伊拉克战争，阿富汗战争，都为苏联解体，美帝一家独大，加剧世界动荡和危险作了注脚。
另外，从反叛领导人贾利勒的出身可以看出，堡垒最容易从内部攻破。贾利勒原来是卡扎菲政府的司法部长，此人一直以敢言著称，而且一直受西方国家和人权组织的好评。
把贾利勒拉入利比亚政府的是卡纸菲的儿子塞伊夫。塞伊夫可能是在伦敦经济学院拿过硕士学位那个，可能是自以为胸中很有韬略、实际办事能力不行那种。据说卡扎菲一度想把贾利勒拿下，但遭到宝贝儿子的极力反对。
北约为利比亚的打砸抢烧分子开路，的黎波里被武装暴徒占领了。 没有天上北约飞机定点轰炸，地面没有英法的特种部队的帮助，利比亚反叛那些乌合之众，可能连一个火力点都拿不下来。
从电视上看，这帮反叛都是吃得很肥壮的年轻人，大多属于“吃饱饭不干事”，“端起碗吃肉放下碗骂人”的，不像是生活在水深火热当中的被压迫者。
利比亚事件对中共的教训可能是，“红色江山万代”传在当今世界很难做到。卡扎菲的家族统治，和中共元老想让太子党接班的本质是一样的。
太子党接班的人才库仅比家族统治大了一点点而已。中共延长统治的出路还在于搞党内民主，扩大统治人才库。
利比亚事件的另外教训应该不是像北约宣扬的那样，是什么民主战胜独裁。这恰恰说明，以美国为首的军事集团，在冷战后没有苏联的制约，越来越肆无忌惮地发动战争，涂炭第三世界国家。
今年是苏联解体20周年，利比亚事件，和前面的伊拉克战争，阿富汗战争，都为苏联解体，美帝一家独大，加剧世界动荡和危险作了注脚。
另外，从反叛领导人贾利勒的出身可以看出，堡垒最容易从内部攻破。贾利勒原来是卡扎菲政府的司法部长，此人一直以敢言著称，而且一直受西方国家和人权组织的好评。
把贾利勒拉入利比亚政府的是卡纸菲的儿子塞伊夫。塞伊夫可能是在伦敦经济学院拿过硕士学位那个，可能是自以为胸中很有韬略、实际办事能力不行那种。据说卡扎菲一度想把贾利勒拿下，但遭到宝贝儿子的极力反对。
Saturday 22 October 2011
Thursday 20 October 2011
台湾学者评艾未未这个人渣
國立中央大學教授 林明杰
将新石器时代的陶器摔碎，碾成粉末，这是艾未未的“艺术创作”。
我孤陋寡闻，这事发生已有些日子，才刚知道。昨天偶然在网上看到，柏林东亚美术馆正展出艾未未用3吨普洱茶茶砖砌成的“茶房”。据柏林东亚美术馆馆长称，当时有两件艾未未的作品供选择，另一件作品是艾未未将新石器时代陶罐砸碎而取得的灰。他最终选择了“茶房”。
看后我还有点庆幸这个美术馆没有选择另一件，这样可以避免那些新石器陶罐被砸碎的命运。不料当我继续在网上搜索后却发现，艾未未在此前早已完成了这件作品，并在柏林一家画廊展出，名为《尘土归尘土（Dustto Dust）》。这件作品是一个巨大的柜子里摆放着十几个装满陶瓷粉末的大玻璃瓶，柜子前方的地面上则散落着一小堆陶瓷碎片。据说这些被摔碎的陶瓷都来自于遥远的新石器时代。
我无意评论艾未未的“艺术”，我只是难以接受一个艺术家怎么忍心砸碎那些陶罐——它们躲过数千年沧海桑田，却躲不过艾未未的“艺术创作”。
艾未未似与新石器时代陶器有仇。数年前，我在瑞士收藏家乌里·希克的别墅中曾看到几件被白色涂料覆盖了的彩陶。我看着觉得是新石器彩陶真品，有点不敢相信谁竟会去这样糟蹋，于是问主人。主人说这是艾未未用真的彩陶做的作品。
有些貌似“前卫”和“先锋”的艺术家，其思维方式和行为方式实质上依然沿袭着他们年少癫狂的“文革”时代的惯性。砸碎，砸烂就意味着创造出一个新天地了吗？破坏文物如果也能算是“艺术创作”，那么与“文革”中的“小将”们相比，艾未未算是小巫了。
新石器陶器是我们先祖的作品。将自己祖宗砸碎给外国人看，算是我们艺术家的本事吗？
将新石器时代的陶器摔碎，碾成粉末，这是艾未未的“艺术创作”。
我孤陋寡闻，这事发生已有些日子，才刚知道。昨天偶然在网上看到，柏林东亚美术馆正展出艾未未用3吨普洱茶茶砖砌成的“茶房”。据柏林东亚美术馆馆长称，当时有两件艾未未的作品供选择，另一件作品是艾未未将新石器时代陶罐砸碎而取得的灰。他最终选择了“茶房”。
看后我还有点庆幸这个美术馆没有选择另一件，这样可以避免那些新石器陶罐被砸碎的命运。不料当我继续在网上搜索后却发现，艾未未在此前早已完成了这件作品，并在柏林一家画廊展出，名为《尘土归尘土（Dustto Dust）》。这件作品是一个巨大的柜子里摆放着十几个装满陶瓷粉末的大玻璃瓶，柜子前方的地面上则散落着一小堆陶瓷碎片。据说这些被摔碎的陶瓷都来自于遥远的新石器时代。
我无意评论艾未未的“艺术”，我只是难以接受一个艺术家怎么忍心砸碎那些陶罐——它们躲过数千年沧海桑田，却躲不过艾未未的“艺术创作”。
艾未未似与新石器时代陶器有仇。数年前，我在瑞士收藏家乌里·希克的别墅中曾看到几件被白色涂料覆盖了的彩陶。我看着觉得是新石器彩陶真品，有点不敢相信谁竟会去这样糟蹋，于是问主人。主人说这是艾未未用真的彩陶做的作品。
有些貌似“前卫”和“先锋”的艺术家，其思维方式和行为方式实质上依然沿袭着他们年少癫狂的“文革”时代的惯性。砸碎，砸烂就意味着创造出一个新天地了吗？破坏文物如果也能算是“艺术创作”，那么与“文革”中的“小将”们相比，艾未未算是小巫了。
新石器陶器是我们先祖的作品。将自己祖宗砸碎给外国人看，算是我们艺术家的本事吗？
Tuesday 18 October 2011
有人又在赵紫阳诞辰鼓噪平反了
老赵的家人，以前的狗腿子们又开始鼓噪，海外华文媒体也遥相呼应，又提给他平反。作为1989年六四四件的亲历者，我亲眼目睹一场下层民众高唱国际歌反官倒，反特权的左翼运动，被老赵的狗腿子和亲美势力纂改成反共的颜色革命。
有网友说，六四毫无疑问应该平反，但问题是由左派出面平反，还是右派出面平凡。一针见血。
“如果左派平反64，很简单，64初衷是反对通货膨胀，反对官倒投机倒把，也就是反对赵紫阳、邓小平那帮走资派。后来，李鹏不识相出来当子弹，造成运动转向，右派逐渐掌握了话语权。最后，走资派邓小平流血镇压左派和极右派才平息了事态。左派 平反64只要把屎盆子扣在走资派头上就好了，把64定性为“人民群众反对走资派、反对贪污腐化、投机倒把的一场爱国民主运动”。如果右派平反64，就得把它定性为“反对共产党专制的民主运动”，那么，共产党就得下台。”
有网友说，六四毫无疑问应该平反，但问题是由左派出面平反，还是右派出面平凡。一针见血。
“如果左派平反64，很简单，64初衷是反对通货膨胀，反对官倒投机倒把，也就是反对赵紫阳、邓小平那帮走资派。后来，李鹏不识相出来当子弹，造成运动转向，右派逐渐掌握了话语权。最后，走资派邓小平流血镇压左派和极右派才平息了事态。左派 平反64只要把屎盆子扣在走资派头上就好了，把64定性为“人民群众反对走资派、反对贪污腐化、投机倒把的一场爱国民主运动”。如果右派平反64，就得把它定性为“反对共产党专制的民主运动”，那么，共产党就得下台。”
Monday 17 October 2011
装BBBC
经常出这种造谣，传谣的报道，明目张胆地违反自己所谓的编辑方针。把一种传言当中的，所谓即将发生的莫须有的大规模事件那出来做新闻。这样bbc的新闻标准就可以随意放弃，为舆论导向服务。对他们不喜欢的社会现象和事件，就严格按照“装BBBC”方针来，但对于他们想大肆报道的对象，就把编辑方针抛到九霄云外。
王敏冷漠质疑幸福广东这篇报道，本来用了监控录像的图片：
但是值班编辑和网络编辑以坚持“装BBBC”方针为由，认为画面过于血腥，禁止使用该图。全然不顾新闻本身是关于血淋淋社会现实的事实。
但卡扎菲北打死后，“装BBBC”的报道变得异常兴奋，编辑室一片骚动。各种谣传，传言，未经证实的一人叙述，说卡扎菲是懦夫的证词，最第一时间出笼。而且不顾自己一贯标榜的编辑方针。在反叛对捉获受伤的卡扎菲，并将其处决后，“装BBBC”使用现场暴徒发来的手机图片，显示卡扎菲奄奄一息，鲜血淋淋的照片。
（图片从中国网站截取）
王敏冷漠质疑幸福广东这篇报道，本来用了监控录像的图片：
但是值班编辑和网络编辑以坚持“装BBBC”方针为由，认为画面过于血腥，禁止使用该图。全然不顾新闻本身是关于血淋淋社会现实的事实。
但卡扎菲北打死后，“装BBBC”的报道变得异常兴奋，编辑室一片骚动。各种谣传，传言，未经证实的一人叙述，说卡扎菲是懦夫的证词，最第一时间出笼。而且不顾自己一贯标榜的编辑方针。在反叛对捉获受伤的卡扎菲，并将其处决后，“装BBBC”使用现场暴徒发来的手机图片，显示卡扎菲奄奄一息，鲜血淋淋的照片。
（图片从中国网站截取）
Sunday 9 October 2011
蒙克：辛亥革命和“救国主义”
评论：辛亥革命和“救国主义”
1911 新亥年中国发生的民族主义革命一劳永逸地结束了中国的君主专制历史，使中国走上探索建立现代民族国家的道路。在过去100年间对于建立什么样的民族国家不同理想的冲突引发政治斗争乃至战争。在纪念辛亥革命百年期间对当场革命不同角度的历史回顾和评价反映出人们对于中国作为民族国家和政治共同体概念的分歧。
作为划时代的历史事件，辛亥革命结束了中国以往几千年的君主专制。其间中国民族主义者参照欧洲民族国家建立共和国家，和后来发生的共产主义革命涉及了两种不同的民族和国家的概念: 前者是中华民族概念，后者是阶级国家概念。
汉民族主义
中华现代民族概念改变了中国传统的国家观念，即以明确的主权疆界代替了传统的中央之国和天下的概念，以有权利之公民观代替了传统的臣民，以主权在民的共和思想代替了君权神授和天命观。
在民族观念上，孙中山早期沿用朱元璋种族革命的口号（“驱逐鞑虏，恢复中华”）。后来这种反满种族主义立场转变为民族同化立场。
孙中山认为民族和国家统一应该通过同化满蒙藏等不同民族实现。虽然后来表示尊重少数民族自治，但一般认为这是孙中山照搬苏联的民族政策，借以争取苏联对国民党的支持。孙中山的继承者蒋介石后来进一步阐述同化思想，认为中国不同民族源远古时期的共同祖先，实为血缘相连的同一民族。
像社会阶级差异被中共利用来发动社会下层起来反对民族主义政权一样，国民党的民族同化主义也被中共利用来争取边疆少数民族对革命的同情和支持。
此种民族观和同化主义观点一般会认为中共后来借鉴苏联民族政策的结果是失败的，并且为今天的西藏和新疆等民族问题埋下了伏笔。他们反思历史的时候往往会对共和和民国时期表现出留恋，认为中共领导的阶级革命和激进社会改革打断了中国正常的现代化进程。
阶级共同体
长期以来中共官方历史一直认为1949年建立的阶级国家是近代屈辱历史唤醒中国民族的结果，数千年“自在”的中国民族变成了“自觉”的民族。虽然根据中共理论，民族国家只是通往世界大同的过渡阶段，但是中共建立的阶级国家却和1840年以来的中国民族主义一脉相承，而且是民族利益的最高体现。
在阶级国家的概念中，民族只具有过渡性质，民族主义不可能成为终极目标，所以汉民族的民族主义和少数民族的民族主义都没有政治空间。在某种程度上，这种“负面”的民族平等在1949年后的头30年当中促进了民族融合。
辛亥革命
认为阶级国家加速了中国强大的看法往往认为领导辛亥革命的旧社会精英以其妥协性和不彻底性不能彻底解决中国社会的根本问题，不能实现民族融和，不能让中国成为世界强国。
中国立国30年过后，邓小平开启了改革开放时代，国家开始了去意识形态化。江泽民的“三个代表”理论标志着中共发生根本转变，中共这个号称工人阶级先锋队的政党变成了全民党，阶级国家的概念又被同辛亥革命相关的旧的民族概念取代。
今年中共党报国庆社论提到中国民族主义革命的领袖，中华民国的创立者孙中山，却回避了中华人民共和国的缔造者毛泽东，此举招致中国左派人士的批评。辛亥百年纪念前传出消息还有，中国私营资本家，亿万富翁梁稳根将被吸纳进入中共中央领导层。
反民族主义
以共产主义为目标的意识形态国家的概念随着中国改革开放以及后来的苏联和东欧政治剧变已经不再是中国主流的政治议题，在旧的民族主义概念抬头的同时，反民族主义的普世观点也开始为许多人接受。
根据这种普世观点，中国面临的外部世界，不是列强环视的丛林，而是规则公平的国际社会；中国只须自我完善、对外接轨并融入国际社会。此种观点在反思历史的时候就会得出反民族主义的结论，认为民族主义多余，激进革命更无必要；只要搞好宪政，确立民主制度，完成工业化，中国的问题就解决了。
他们在解释孙中山及其三民主义的时候，往往侧重其民权思想而忽视其强调民族凝聚力的一面。不过历史上的孙中山似乎并不赞成照搬西方的民主制度。
孙中山一直将其三民主义视作“救国主义”，以此激发中国人思想和信仰的力量，实现建立世界强国的目标。孙中山虽然强调民权，但认为人民当中的大多不知不觉，需要先知先觉的人引导。
孙中山本人也强调过必先实现民族主义，而后才能实现世界大同。有学者（A.D. Smith）认为孙中山的国家主义在教条上接近欧洲的法西斯主义。
1911 新亥年中国发生的民族主义革命一劳永逸地结束了中国的君主专制历史，使中国走上探索建立现代民族国家的道路。在过去100年间对于建立什么样的民族国家不同理想的冲突引发政治斗争乃至战争。在纪念辛亥革命百年期间对当场革命不同角度的历史回顾和评价反映出人们对于中国作为民族国家和政治共同体概念的分歧。
作为划时代的历史事件，辛亥革命结束了中国以往几千年的君主专制。其间中国民族主义者参照欧洲民族国家建立共和国家，和后来发生的共产主义革命涉及了两种不同的民族和国家的概念: 前者是中华民族概念，后者是阶级国家概念。
汉民族主义
中华现代民族概念改变了中国传统的国家观念，即以明确的主权疆界代替了传统的中央之国和天下的概念，以有权利之公民观代替了传统的臣民，以主权在民的共和思想代替了君权神授和天命观。
在民族观念上，孙中山早期沿用朱元璋种族革命的口号（“驱逐鞑虏，恢复中华”）。后来这种反满种族主义立场转变为民族同化立场。
孙中山认为民族和国家统一应该通过同化满蒙藏等不同民族实现。虽然后来表示尊重少数民族自治，但一般认为这是孙中山照搬苏联的民族政策，借以争取苏联对国民党的支持。孙中山的继承者蒋介石后来进一步阐述同化思想，认为中国不同民族源远古时期的共同祖先，实为血缘相连的同一民族。
像社会阶级差异被中共利用来发动社会下层起来反对民族主义政权一样，国民党的民族同化主义也被中共利用来争取边疆少数民族对革命的同情和支持。
此种民族观和同化主义观点一般会认为中共后来借鉴苏联民族政策的结果是失败的，并且为今天的西藏和新疆等民族问题埋下了伏笔。他们反思历史的时候往往会对共和和民国时期表现出留恋，认为中共领导的阶级革命和激进社会改革打断了中国正常的现代化进程。
阶级共同体
长期以来中共官方历史一直认为1949年建立的阶级国家是近代屈辱历史唤醒中国民族的结果，数千年“自在”的中国民族变成了“自觉”的民族。虽然根据中共理论，民族国家只是通往世界大同的过渡阶段，但是中共建立的阶级国家却和1840年以来的中国民族主义一脉相承，而且是民族利益的最高体现。
在阶级国家的概念中，民族只具有过渡性质，民族主义不可能成为终极目标，所以汉民族的民族主义和少数民族的民族主义都没有政治空间。在某种程度上，这种“负面”的民族平等在1949年后的头30年当中促进了民族融合。
辛亥革命
认为阶级国家加速了中国强大的看法往往认为领导辛亥革命的旧社会精英以其妥协性和不彻底性不能彻底解决中国社会的根本问题，不能实现民族融和，不能让中国成为世界强国。
中国立国30年过后，邓小平开启了改革开放时代，国家开始了去意识形态化。江泽民的“三个代表”理论标志着中共发生根本转变，中共这个号称工人阶级先锋队的政党变成了全民党，阶级国家的概念又被同辛亥革命相关的旧的民族概念取代。
今年中共党报国庆社论提到中国民族主义革命的领袖，中华民国的创立者孙中山，却回避了中华人民共和国的缔造者毛泽东，此举招致中国左派人士的批评。辛亥百年纪念前传出消息还有，中国私营资本家，亿万富翁梁稳根将被吸纳进入中共中央领导层。
反民族主义
以共产主义为目标的意识形态国家的概念随着中国改革开放以及后来的苏联和东欧政治剧变已经不再是中国主流的政治议题，在旧的民族主义概念抬头的同时，反民族主义的普世观点也开始为许多人接受。
根据这种普世观点，中国面临的外部世界，不是列强环视的丛林，而是规则公平的国际社会；中国只须自我完善、对外接轨并融入国际社会。此种观点在反思历史的时候就会得出反民族主义的结论，认为民族主义多余，激进革命更无必要；只要搞好宪政，确立民主制度，完成工业化，中国的问题就解决了。
他们在解释孙中山及其三民主义的时候，往往侧重其民权思想而忽视其强调民族凝聚力的一面。不过历史上的孙中山似乎并不赞成照搬西方的民主制度。
孙中山一直将其三民主义视作“救国主义”，以此激发中国人思想和信仰的力量，实现建立世界强国的目标。孙中山虽然强调民权，但认为人民当中的大多不知不觉，需要先知先觉的人引导。
孙中山本人也强调过必先实现民族主义，而后才能实现世界大同。有学者（A.D. Smith）认为孙中山的国家主义在教条上接近欧洲的法西斯主义。
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)