Sunday, April 27, 2008

柏楊:青天白日 國民黨收回去



自由時報記者范正祥╱台北報導〕總統府資政、人權作家柏楊建議修改國旗、國歌,備受關注。其中,柏楊希望國旗恢復成「五色旗」,指的是中華民國成立以後,曾使用象徵五族共和的紅黃藍白黑五色旗長達十七年,直到國民黨完成北伐統一,才換成現今的青天白日滿地紅國旗。

  關於中華民國國旗的歷史,起源最早的是陸皓東設計的青天白日旗,用於興中會時代。一九○六年同盟會開會討論國旗方案時,孫文提出以青天白日旗為國旗,但並未獲得共識。之後同盟會南洋分會副會長張永福之妻陳淑字依孫文的草圖和構想縫製了四種型式的青天白日滿地紅旗。

  其中一款型式是現今採用的中華民國旗幟,還有一面青天白日滿地紅旗於同盟會廣東歷次起義中普遍採用,即現今中華民國陸軍旗。

  根據史料記載,當時革命成功得力各省響應,而響應的各地革命軍,一共使用下列四種旗幟:(一)武昌革命軍使用的共進會十八黃星旗(代表響應的十八行省);(二)上海江蘇軍政府使用的光復會五色旗(代表五族共和,宋教仁與陳英世主張);(三)廣東軍政府使用的青天白日滿地紅旗(孫文等興中會系統使用);(四)惠州起義的陳炯明使用之井字旗(代表均田思想,廖仲愷主張)。

  一九一二年5月10日臨時參議會討論國旗統一案時,中華民國臨時政府參議院決議,採用上海軍政府的五色旗(紅黃藍白黑)為國旗,武昌革命軍的十八黃星旗為陸軍軍旗,廣東軍政府的青天白日滿地紅旗為海軍軍旗(滿地紅部分加上若干白線)。孫文反對五色旗為國旗,力主以青天白日滿地紅旗為國旗。

  一九二○年孫文由非常國會選為非常大總統後,明令廢止五色旗及十八黃星旗,以青天白日滿地紅為國旗。自此青天白日滿地紅旗成為南方政府的國旗,北伐後成為全中國的國旗。

  至於國歌的由來,歌詞原是出自一九二四年6月16日孫文在廣州黃埔軍官學校開學典禮中對該校師生的訓詞。

  北伐成功以後,戴傳賢建議將此訓詞採用為黨歌歌詞。一九三○年3月24日行政院明令全國在國歌未制定前,一般集會場合均唱這首國民黨黨歌代替國歌。之後,幾經波折,最後於一九三七年6月3日,國府通過以黨歌作為國歌;但國歌迄今並無法源,爭議迭起。

Federalists' Comment:

One doesn't have to agree with 「自由時報」's platform and its editorial rhetorics, however, one must admit that it is the most liberal Chinese newspaper out there. (!) What is being put forward is all historical facts, and it is precisely because the KMT has been practicing myriad forms of authoritarianism that has caused them to lose mainland China, it was their soft spot for decades, and it is precisely what the current ROC flag and national anthem stood for. 旗帜学vexillology's abiding principle is that you cannot put a single party's emblem (KMT's) "青天白日" into the canton (upper left quarter) of a national flag, such gesture is sure to be deduced as a form of authoritarianism and dictatorship, which was what Sun Yat-sen and Chiang Kia-shek were engaged in during the 20's-40's (despite wartime necessity, and for this, Commie exploited it to the hilt, 所谓,螳螂捕蝉,黄雀在后). Do some research and you will find out yourself (mainly from Western "alternative source", 'cause Chinese just habitually love to "suppress" things). The truth might not be "pretty", albeit the truth."

Saturday, April 26, 2008

Federalists' Debate: James vs. Dachuxing

James:

I must first say that I welcome all constructive feedback and criticism from all, as you correctly put it, that our organizational construct is that of a horizontal plain, and not of a pyramid shape. And one wins majority of support only through rational persuasion, not coercion, and it is in this spirit I wish to put forward the following dialectics to thy scrutiny.

"Your actions are treacherous to your own people. In the end, such treachery is self-destructive, as Westerners will never view freedom-supporting Chinese as their equal." ---- James.

To address the above inference I must confide to all that it is such a regrettable outcome that James has obtained a misunderstanding of my position. And so I have to Re-re-reiterate that it is only due to my Confucian faith (confer. 三纲五常) that entails all my action, which is all justifiable. I must also lament that it is very unfortunate that James has beget a dogged vision of not only my true intention but also toward Western Democracy. As I am a patriotic Chinese and a Freedom loving responsible citizen of a democratic institution, which I believe has retain the dispensation of a Manifest Destiny to be spread around the whole globe, it is my DUTY ( 义-causal action of Morality) that I shall help my fellow compatriots to obtain their equal share of such blessing, and be free, ONE DAY, from Communist Tyranny.

And since James has failed to provide detailed enumerations as to what are the specific actions that is objectionable to him, I am confounded at this point, if he wishes to put forward a specific case, I am ready to give my defense in due course.

"An attack on the body of the People's Republic of China is an attack towards 1.3 billion Chinese." ---- James.

James, since you're raised in the West you should be competent enough to differentiate the difference between Nation and State. (although both translates into Chinese as 国, which is unfortunately but inevitably misleading and confusing). It shall be reckoned by all that I am waging a relentless campaign of opposition against the latter, NOT the former, of which I maintain a deep faith and love, and thereby am proud to be called a "nationalist", a patriot, but not a statist. ( The detail explanation of which has been laid out in my thesis Patriotism vs. Statism. ) I am re-re-reiterating here, once again, I am attacking the PRC as a communist party dictatorial institution (little more than 50 yr old) and by default, ipso facto the Party itself , and it DOES NOT constitute as an attack on the 1.3 billion strong Chinese Nation ( 5000 yr old) , which is quite a totally disparate concept. The Communists are voluntarily confusing the two concepts in their propaganda ministry in order to sustain their dictatorship by continuing practicing obscurantism to their people ( which is more of a treachery and a tragedy), we have to establish a premise of such stark different entity.

In the light of the above rationale, I can even lead your thoughts to a form of syllogism (A-B-C) by postulating that even BOYCOTTING Beijing Olympics is a form of ad hoc PATRIOTISM, however, for the sake a brevity, I shall adjourn my defense to the next session.

Thanks, James.

Friday, April 25, 2008

CHINA. That is a PROBLEM.



这是个问题!

这是个问题
嗯~这是个问题 嗯~这成了问题
嗯~这需要谁来认同吗 嗯~需要谁来验证吗
我就是幕后的主使 我就是狡诈的帮凶
我就是最致命的王牌 我就是未卜的先知
我就是孤注一掷的骰子 我就是阴奉阳违的花招
我就是图穷匕现的伎俩 我就是这个问题
社会是越来越复杂 难道社会是越来越险恶了吗
蔓延的杂草即将被清除 可威胁是无处不在的
新的问题产生需要你去化解 新的矛盾产生需要你去化解
什么才是我们应去追寻的 什么才是我们应该坚持的
这个问题 这个问题 这个问题
我就是幕后的主使 我就是狡诈的帮凶
我就是最致命的王牌 我就是未卜的先知
我想去对这歌功颂德的时代 给一记响亮的耳光或是 泼一瓢冷水
因为我讨厌那些赞同的附和声 数千年来的奴颜卑膝 教育的你是否TMD进化了
社会真的是在繁荣吗 还只是只表面容光的壳子
几千年的文明沉淀着 炎黄子孙的耻辱史
昨日的创痛不应再延续 是谁翻身做了当家的主人
这个问题 这个问题 这个问题 这个问题
why why why 这是个问题 why why why 这成了问题
问题是我们不去站出来 去指证你受辱的基因
问题是我们不敢站出来 去质问你懦弱的源泉
你的热血哪去了... ...
(解决的方式 并非取决于我们 需要谁来认同 需要谁来验证吗?)
威胁 无处不在威胁 无处不在威胁
无所不在的威胁 是无所不在的威胁
无处不在威胁 无处不在威胁 无处不在威胁
是无所不在的威胁 威胁 威胁 威胁
why why why 这是个问题 why why why 这成了问题
问题是我们不去站出来 去指证你受辱的基因
问题是我们不敢站出来 去质问你懦弱的源泉
你的热血哪去了... ...
问题 问题 问题 问题 问题 问题.....
这是个问题!!~~!!

Music by Miserable Faith 《痛苦的信仰》
Copyrights: Miserable Faith 《痛苦的信仰》
Film by Dachuxing 大楚興
Copyrights: Dachuxing 大楚興

Thursday, April 24, 2008

《烽火扬州路》The War: Road to Yangzhou

by 轮回乐队 AGAIN!



凭谁问,廉颇老矣尚能饭否!

千古江山,英雄无觅,孙仲谋处。
舞榭歌台,风流总被,雨打风吹去。
斜阳草树,寻常巷陌,人道寄奴曾住。
想当年,金戈铁马,气吞万里如虎。

元嘉草草,封狼居胥,赢得仓皇北顾。
四十三年,望中犹记,烽火扬州路。
可堪回首,佛狸祠下,一片神鸦社鼓。
凭谁问:廉颇老矣,尚能饭否?

—— 辛弃疾《永遇乐·京口北固亭怀古》

Wednesday, April 23, 2008

BOX song by Cui Jian 《盒子》:崔健



盒子

我的理想是那个
那个旗子包着的盒子
盒子里装的是什么 
人们从来没见过
旗子是被鲜血染红的 
胜利者最爱红颜色

盒子里的东西变得不重要 
重要的算是胜利者的骄傲
骄傲的胜利者最有力量 
稳定地坐在盒子上
旗子上的鲜血都开始湿了吧 
把胜利者的裤子都染红了
嘿我的理想是那个 
那个红旗包着的那个盒子
可是我的身体在这儿哪 
被带血的旗子和腿挡着
我的理想在哪儿 我的身体在这儿

没有理想的世界在我的手里
越来越他妈象个耗子
偷偷地咬破了那个旗子 
我就要不得你想看见我还活着
可是我的理想太大了
怎么从这个小眼出来哪
一使劲一蹬腿儿钻了进去 
才知道这里盒子是一个套着一个
上面的笨蛋哪里知道哪
这里面的盒子是这样多呢
我的理想它到底在哪儿呢 
一个接着一个盒子地翻着
终于翻到了最后一个 
还是没找到我想要的
突然发现我被骗了 
急得手脚乱脚着
突然我一脚踩空了 
我操这一个洞 怎么还很深的
顺着洞里是往下走 
越走越深越宽阔
走了多长多久 我没有觉得 
而且忘了我到底是干什么的
突然一束光照得我的眼睛疼了 
我再往前走干脆睁不开了
为了失去光明我只能站着
站着才知道我的身体是多么虚弱

突然我的理想在叫唤 
它不是来自前方而是来自后面
回去砸了那些破盒子 
回去撕破那个烂旗子
告诉那个胜利者他弄错了 
世界早就开始变化了

Monday, April 21, 2008

Patriotism vs. Statism

The eminent British political theorist, Edmund Burke once observed, and I'm paraphrasing here, in order to love one's country, it has to be lovely.

Now that's really the key issue that draws all of the aspiring individuals here in order to make our country more "lovely". But the dilemma resides in the incompetence of Chinese mindset to differentiate the "country" (5000 yrs of history) with the "state" (less than 100 yrs), to which the passion designated to the former is call "patriotism" (爱国主义) and the later "statism" (中央集权的社会国家主义).

Most Chinese today would easily mixed the two up, granted that the Chinese civilization is built upon a system of coercion and obedience, so when they see someone is against the state, they immediately deem his/her behavior as a manner of betrayal. That is precisely due to the fact that the Chinese today cannot differentiate the sharp contrast between a "loyal opposition" and a "treasonous traitor", because there is no proper form of civil politicking taken place in China.

It is my love for the nation, the country, the culture, the history, and the civilization that marked my words ever provocative and all that incendiary precisely because my vehement hatred toward the "state", a.k.a. PRC. So to invoke Burke's remark once again,and comply with the definition of what a "country" is in a Chinese mindset, I don't see anything lovely about it, and in order to make it "lovely", I reckon that the subversion of the "state" is to be placed on the top of the agenda. Otherwise Chinese will be forever bitterly divided between an abstract notion of a "lovely country" and a materialistic abhorring sovereign state entity known as "PRC".

What we need today isn't bogus invocation of blind UNITY統一, which is by and large saturated with propaganda platitude and is bound to be degenerated into half-hearted inertia. What we need is instead, ACTION. If the Communists ever since it took power in '49 is practicing myriad form of mental colonization, now is the time to help people to decolonize their mindset in order to regain their full integrity as a sound and natural human being endowed with all appropriate natural and civil rights.

Thursday, April 17, 2008

William Frank Buckley Jr. R.I.P. (1925 – 2008)

In memory of William F. Buckley Jr. (1925 – 2008)

William F. Buckley was a towering titan of ideas with an impeccable mannerism, and of course, one of my most admired menschen who champions relentlessly a belief system, a faith, and above all, freedom of humanity, a key tenet of neo-conservatism, of which he has been dubbed as its godfather and now guardian angel. He left us on Feb. 27 but his spiritual presence and his legacy will stay with us and keep inspiring us forever. This belated obituary is originally excerpted from the London Times:

William F. Buckley was a progenitor, and the best-known proponent, of modern American conservatism. He founded and edited National Review, America’s foremost conservative journal; his column, On the Right, appeared in hundreds of newspapers; his weekly television programme, Firing Line, was shown from coast to coast. Handsome and witty, he was a tireless debater and lecturer.

He wrote at least one book a year — lively political essays, fragments of autobiography, memoirs of sailing and travelling, and then a series of thrillers. His was the urbane voice which accompanied the progress of thoroughgoing conservatism from the political wilderness to the election of Ronald Reagan to the White House; the legacy of his ideas continues to exert a powerful influence over the Administration of George W. Bush.

William F. Buckley Jr (as he always styled himself) was born in 1925, in New York, the sixth child of William Frank and Aloise Buckley. His father, a Texan of Irish descent, had made a considerable fortune from Mexican and Venezuelan oil. His mother came from an old New Orleans family.

Their natural conservatism had been vigorously reinforced when in 1921 Buckley Sr was expelled from Mexico and his property seized by a revolutionary left-wing government. However, he was by no means an establishment character, which, Buckley Jr afterwards mused, might account for the fact that none of his ten children showed any inclination to rebel against their father’s political views or staunch Roman Catholicism. One of Buckley Jr’s liberal opponents referred to the Buckleys as “kind of sick Kennedys”, an analogy accepted with characteristic good humour. “Our family plays touch football too,” said Buckley, “but not so ferociously.”
Related Internet Links

The children were given a wide-ranging if rather eccentric education, at schools in Venezuela, England (where Buckley attended the now defunct Jesuit public school, Beaumont), France and the United States, and from a succession of private tutors. They became bilingual or trilingual, and were imbued especially, at their father’s wish, with a somewhat mandarin command of the English language.

After graduating, as head of his class, from Millbrook School, New York, he studied briefly at the University of Mexico, before being drafted into the US Army. Just as the war ended he was posted to the Mexican border, and was discharged in 1946 as a 2nd lieutenant. He went to Yale, where he studied political science, economics and history and also taught Spanish.

He was a big man on campus, belonging to the best clubs, touring with the debating team, editing the Yale Daily News and being chosen, in 1950, as class orator for Alumni Day. His proposed speech was indignantly rejected by the university authorities because he attacked Yale and its professors for their doctrinaire liberalism and atheism. A publisher to whom he described the incident encouraged him to turn the speech into a book. God and Man at Yale, published in 1951, launched Buckley’s career.

In it he named offending professors and inveighed against what he considered their brainwashing techniques, arguing that the alumni had reason to feel betrayed. The wrath it provoked was amazing; Buckley was described as “the most dangerous undergraduate ever to attend Yale”. Sundry academics confronted him, and he was invited to debate in other universities. Dancing around adversaries who had thought him just an impertinent youngster, he proved a formidable controversialist.

His sister Priscilla had been at Vassar, where she detected similar leftist tendencies. Buckley met, and in July 1950 had married, her classmate, Patricia Taylor of Vancouver. “She looks like a queen, acts like a queen and is just the wife for Billy,” declared another Buckley sister, Patricia.

After a few months working undercover in Mexico for the CIA, he became Associate Editor of The American Mercury, a journal sadly diminished from the great days of H. L. Mencken and George Jean Nathan, but he soon resigned in favour of freelance writing and lecturing. With Brent Bozell, who was with him at Yale and had married Patricia Buckley, he wrote another book to outrage the liberals, McCarthy and His Enemies (1954). In it they attacked America’s anti-anti-communists. They argued that there had been genuine penetration of society by communists and fellow-travellers, but seemed not to appreciate that McCarthy’s scattergun approach was much more harmful than helpful to the anti-communist cause. Nor did they make the distinction, which Buckley was to employ very effectively in other controversies later, between cast of mind and active conspiracy.

America lacked any journal of right-wing opinion, comparable to The Nation and The New Republic on the left. In 1955 was launched National Review, a weekly — afterwards fortnightly — magazine of political comment and opinion, with arts and review sections, rather like The Spectator or Time and Tide, to be both a platform and a debating ground for sophisticated conservatives.

Although only a third of the money came from family sources, it was agreed that Buckley should have absolute control of the voting shares, a provision allowing him to prevent the ideological schisms which had destroyed similar journals in the past. Rallying to this new masthead came such theoreticians of the Right as Russell Kirk, Frank S. Meyer, Whittaker Chambers and James Burnham. They shared a strong anti-communism — several of them had once been communists themselves — but in their domestic policy they formed two recognisably distinct, and to some extent incompatible, schools. On one hand were the traditionalists, whose Burkean doctrine emphasised continuity, order and Christian morals. On the other were libertarians who believed in a minimum of state interference and control.

These schools complemented each other but could never quite merge. As a group American conservatives were formulating their position almost from scratch. Despite some indigenous elements (a strict interpretation of the Constitution, for example), there was no historic party line for them to follow, so they drew heavily on British and European ideas. Their economics, derived from such Austrian liberals (very different from American liberals) as Hayek and von Mises, had much in common with what would afterwards be called “Thatcherism” in Britain.

Buckley himself was neither the best writer nor the most original thinker, but he conducted the group brilliantly. In ferocious clashes he separated National Review conservatism from two, at that time influential, factions — the “objectivists”, led by Ayn Rand who preached a doctrine of atheistic selfishness, and the John Birch Society, led by Robert Welch, which was obsessed by the notion of communist conspiracy. Ayn Rand would never afterwards stay in a room with Buckley, and the John Birchers bombarded National Review with hate mail.

The liberal establishment had responded to the appearance of National Review with a degree of venom which seems incredible now. Buckley was compared to Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin and the Ku Klux Klan. As he wrote in an early issue of the magazine: “Liberals do a great deal of talking about hearing other points of view, but it sometimes shocks them to learn that there are other points of view.” However, as he became fashionable, he became acceptable, the pet conservative of highbrow liberals, on friendly terms with such as John Kenneth Galbraith and Norman Mailer.

He began writing his own column, weekly at first, then three times a week, in 1962. Before long it was being syndicated to some 300 papers, and in 1967 received a Best Column of the Year award. In 1966 he started a weekly television show, in which he interrogated, and courteously disputed with, studio guests, including George H. W. Bush, Jimmy Carter, Barry Goldwater, Germaine Greer, Edward Heath, Alec Douglas-Home, Henry Kissinger, the Dalai Lama, Groucho Marx, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, Ian Smith and Margaret Thatcher. When asked why Robert Kennedy had refused to appear, Buckley replied: “Why does baloney reject the mincer?” The original 26 broadcasting outlets grew to 120, after which Firing Line moved to the Public Broadcasting Service.

Buckley toyed with practical politics. In 1960 he helped to organise Young Americans for Freedom as a counterpart to the left-wing Students for a Democratic Society. In 1961 he was instrumental in founding the New York State Conservative Party. Beneath its banner his brother, James Buckley, was elected senator and Buckley himself ran for Mayor of New York City— primarily as a spoiling operation against the liberal Republican, John Lindsay. When asked what he would do if he won the election, he said: “Demand a recount.” He wrote one of his best and most entertaining books about the campaign, The Unmaking of a Mayor (1966). In 1973 he was invited to serve on the US delegation to the United Nations, an experience which proved very disappointing, because he was never allowed to make any speeches attacking the Soviet Union’s record on human rights. However, another acidly amusing book, United Nations Journal, came out of it.

Surprisingly, in 1976, he was persuaded to try his hand at fiction — a spy thriller, Saving the Queen, which featured a hero, Blackford Oakes, a CIA man who had been at an English public school and at Yale, with obvious resemblances to the author. In that first, most extravagant and exuberant volume Oakes enjoys a love scene with “Queen Caroline” of England. His subsequent exploits — written during annual skiing holidays in Switzerland — were more soberly rooted in real political events of the Cold War era. Buckley’s books, fiction and non-fiction, made little impact in Britain and most were not even published here. But the novels became bestsellers in America, mainly perhaps on the strength of their author’s celebrity.

His fame was indeed extraordinary. He received dozens of honorary degrees and awards. References to him in plays or television programmes were universally understood. He and Pat were stars of the Social Register. But his charm and modesty in dealing with all manner of people were unimpaired. This frenetic activity — writing in planes and cars and hotel rooms, constantly travelling to lecture and for Firing Line — generated money with which to subsidise National Review. The magazine sold well for that kind of journal, but had never covered its costs. Regular donations from loyal readers, including Ronald Reagan, John Wayne and Charlton Heston, helped. He continued as the nominal editor, spending perhaps three days a fortnight in the office, while the detailed editorial work was done by his sister Priscilla.

A younger team was introduced in the late 1980s, and a British journalist, John O’Sullivan, brought over as Editor. But Buckley remained Editor-in-Chief, finally giving up control in 2004.

In a sense, though, the job had been done. American conservatism had permeated the mainstream of politics, much as Thatcherism permeated British politics (and O’Sullivan had served on Mrs Thatcher’s policy unit). Buckley was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1991.

Some said that Buckleyite conservatives, like Thatcherite Tories, were really radicals, and when he was asked if he considered himself a “true conservative”, Buckley replied: “I feel I qualify spiritually and philosophically, but temperamentally I am not of the breed.”

Be that as it may, Buckley’s personality, even more than his thinking or his writing, gave impetus, shape and colour to the whole movement. As the columnist George Will observed: “Before there was Ronald Reagan there was Barry Goldwater, and before there was Barry, there was National Review, and before there was National Review there was Bill Buckley with a spark in his mind.”

His wife Pat died in 2007. He is survived by his son, the author and satirist Christopher Buckley.

William F. Buckley Jr, author and commentator, was born on November 24, 1925. He died on February 27, 2008, aged 82

Sunday, April 13, 2008

Federalists' Emblems





Saturday, April 12, 2008

What is a Chinese Federalist?

Ladies and Gentlemen:

I think now is the time to furnish you with a proper definition of what it means to be a Chinese federalist.

A Chinese federalist is first and foremost a Chinese nationalist and a staunch constitutionalist who advocates for federal republicanism in
China. He is fundamentally a pan-blue supporter and concurs with basic doctrines of Dr. Sun Yat-sen. He is a 21th century manifestation of Chinese political aspirants who seek for a new political institution in China and calling for a total reconfiguration of the current political landscape within. He is a self-brandished Chinese neocon. That is both neo-Confucian and neo-conservative, the former of which is an "enlightened Confucian" who embraces both Western libertarian principles as well as autochthonous and orthodox Confucian values; the latter, not merely by chance, do find many analogies with his Western counterpart with respect to world view and political ideals.

A Chinese federalist advocates for federal republicanism for China with elements of both federalism and confederacy, and reckons such political construct to be the most ideal and suitable for a country as large and ethnicities as diverse as China. China Proper is to be organized in federal system, while China Outer, that is Mongolia, Xinjiang, Tibet, pockets of ethnic minorities autonomous regions, Hongkong, Macau, and possibly Taiwan are to be encompassed into China according to confederate principles. The latter three regions, with predominantly Han majority, can be considered to join the federal union fairly easier since historically they were considered to be China Proper, however, this is a relatively minor issue and will not be taken into any urgency or priority.

The priority and urgency thereby lays in the abiding principle of federalists' relentless opposition to Communist dictatorship and one-party authoritarianism. A Chinese federalist initially advocates for the dismantling CCP's overlordship, freedom and liberty to be restored, law and order institutionalized, and proper due process of democratic representation elected directly by the people to be taken place. It is this very subversive nature of Chinese federalist that would undoubtedly today, classifies his stance as revolutionary. And indeed in the contemporary political vocabulary that a Chinese federalist is in essence, a revolutionary, who does find much parallels with the American federalists some 200 years ago. The Americans back then were fighting British tyranny. Chinese federalists today are fighting Communist dictatorship, and calling for a "fourth revolution and the establishment of the fourth republic" in the context of modern history of
China since 1911. With respect to this seemingly novel coinage a concise connotation is needed, which runs as the following:

The first revolution is the overthrow of Manchu imperial dynasty in 1911 which marked the beginning of Chinese republicanism. The second is Chiang Kai-shek’s victory of his military Northern Expedition(北伐)in 1928 which overthrown the Beijing government of the First Republic and transferred power to the newly established feeble capital of Nanking. The third is the Maoist military triumph of proletariat dictatorship(无产阶级专政)and the establishment of the People’s Republic in 1949 which still represent the current political entity of China. And the fourth is the upcoming democratic revolution in which Chinese federalists are to play a crucial role. The chronology of the three existed republics established in China runs as follows: The first, 1911-1928 represented by Beijing and Five Color flag; the second, 1928-1949 represented by KMT’s Nanking capital and Blue Sky White Sun and Red Earth flag; and the third and current one from 1949 onwards represented by CCP’s Beijing capital and Five Stars flag. The fourth and ultimate one is the manifestation of a ne plus ultra political aspiration by all Chinese in over a century's struggle for freedom and liberty. The proper name of which is to be known as Federal Republic of China.

With the above chronological rundown, Chinese federalist is calling for the end of CCP’s government, and the restoration of the original 1911’s republic, symbolized by the original flag of republican China – Five Color flag, it is to this end that Chinese federalists shall endeavor to the utmost tenacity. As to the detailed methodology regarding the implementation of such grave cause, Chinese federalist needs to confer and collaborate with all existing fronts, which are to be rallied under the common umbrella of the establishment of a free and democratic Chinese federation.

Finally, there is a clarification necessarily to be made on the nature of a federalist being a nationalist, that he is espousing a brand of nationalism coined by Dr. Sun Yat-sen as “civic nationalism”(公民民族主义), which embodies the first principle of Dr. Sun’s Three People Doctrine (三民主义), and this shall be differentiated from Chinese Han-chauvinism (汉沙文主义) and Han-ethnocentrism(汉本位中心论). Chinese federalist maintains firmly that being a neo-conservative and a neo-Confucian does not connote to such inference and shall not be confused as such, we also espouses a positive sense of patriotism as a constructive force toward the establishment of a solid democratic republic. Chinese federalist staunchly recognizes the right of the people in their free association with any religious institutions and intellectual schools that one sees fit, and their rights shall not be infringed upon in any ways by the state.

The above expatiations shall offer a concise synopsis on the definition of a Chinese federalist, I humbly submit to your scrutiny, from which any informative and constructive input or criticism are welcomed.

Thank you.


Yours truly,



大楚興

Dachuxing

Further insights into Chinese federalism can be read via my blog:

http://federalistpartyofchina.blogspot.com/

A detailed draft of Federal Constitution has already been made by pioneer Chinese democratic activists more than a decade ago, and can be retrieved via the internet:

http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/7288/fedconn.htm


Additional amendment added by James Dai:

A Federalist believes in nationalism and a drafted Constitution, which provides a civic contract. A Federal Republic is most desirable, and Neo-Confucianism is also compatible. Libertarian principles, especially regarding the realm of economy, are the most appropriate form of of governance.

In addition, a Federalist also believes in a strong federal government, with power over political matters, along with an auxiliary confederation to consider everything else. We borrow from the Federalist Party in the United States some two hundred years ago. We also believe in Legalism, that the rule of law is the ultimate arbiter on the land. Without which, democracy might degrade into mob rule, Communalism into apathy, and Confucianism into a political instrument, but Legalism cannot be challenged, and thus elements of Confucianism, Liberal Principles, and Conservative Principles can be preserved. The might of the Qin empire drew upon the inspiration of law, and the most brilliant scholars flocked to the courts of the formerly barbarian nation. Nevertheless, legalism was unfortunately degenerated into authoritarian rule, and was buried for two thousand years. One day, we will properly institutionalize its doctrines again. That is, PROPER legalism, which is the canonization of the LAW, and could be understood as a constitutionalist, and one is to differentiate proper exercises of legalism from draconian measures of Spartan style , 法治与苛政的区别。

Free Tibet is a Noble Cause

-Prologue:

The violence and riots that's wrecking across the Tibetan plateau these days has aroused deep concerns from international interest groups, and not the least to the Tibetans themselves exiled as well as native. ACL and the Federalists of China staunchly condemn the Chinese Communist Party adopting any means of violent suppression of what appear to be by all accounts initiated as a peaceful petition and demonstration of Tibetan solidarity from monks and civilians. The rioters and the arsonists who later caused tragic death tolls have to be put on trials for their criminal deeds, but most crucially, it is the Chinese Communist Party who should be bearing most weight of culpability. The bitter seeds which the Communists had sown since its invasion in the beginning of 1950 had spawned some horrible fruits during the course of half century's hegemonic overlordship. Its policy toward Tibet is intrinsically flawed and its manner toward whom is pathologically dogged. At this pivotal moment, people would once again raise the question of the Tibetan settlement, and what it means to establish a "Free Tibet", the following postulation delineates a general outlook as to my political stance with regard to such inquiry.

I am not a supporter of Tibetan independence, but I am a fervent sympathizer for the cause of Free Tibet Movement, and a firm supporter for the return of His Holiness, Dala Lama to his native land. Personally, I developed a deep love toward that sacred piece of land that we know as the highest country on Earth, and I have bore a deep abhorrence toward the Reds' evil deeds that it inflicted upon her land and her people.

If the Tibetans will one day obtain their total freedom and live once again, with their free will, under the theocratic system presided by His Holiness, Dalai Lama, The Chinese will only be deeply honored with such profound and ancient religious institution erected by her side. It will only act as a protectorate with the reservation of total self-autonomy within the Tibetan's own jurisdiction. This means that the current regional configuration adopted by the Red's total arbitrary cartography will be abandoned, and the original Tibetan territory which includes today's vast areas of Qi Hai, Gan Su, and Si Chuan provinces will be restored back to their motherland.

I believe that the Tibetans deserve all of the equal rights which are postulated in the new constitution of the FRC. And it is precisely the primarily obligation of the new federal government as the guarantor to ensure the proper excise of such statutes endowed upon all citizens of FRC.

The following is a retort to many of the Chinese Tibetan-haters and CCP indoctrinated adherents out there:

"Your faith in the veracity of the medias of commie party organ is touching, it indicates that the age of innocence has not yet over. Just on the face-value why I support FREE TIBET: His holiness the Dalai lama of Tibetan Buddhism advocates PEACE, BENEVOLENCE, TOLERANCE, and UNIVERSAL FRATERNIZATION, on the other hand, the Chinese Commies espouses VIOLENCE, HATE, MASS STRUGGLE, and perpetual DICTATORSHIP, goddammit, will we even have the luxury to carry out this type of conversation w/in the confines of Commie walls? Everything's one voice, one think, one speak. The Tibetans need total autonomy, reconfiguration of their boundary, and the return of Dalai Lama and I'm wholeheartedly for it. 所谓,烧,杀,抢,打,砸,实乃共匪之老本行,现在嫁祸于人,自己装活菩萨,实是司空见惯,见怪不怪了... Commies need to get their claws off of Tibet, and off of China as well."

"IN THIS PARTICULAR INCIDENT--I'd rather wave the TIBETAN FLAG and tell the other vehement commie dogs waving the FIVE STAR RED FLAG in Chinese: 不要继续再作共匪奴才,为虎作伥了,你以为就你一个爱国吗?老子少小离家,流亡海外,离乡背井,走到哪不是堂堂正正的华人?我今儿就告你,自由西藏完全是个正义的动机!"

The following particular clause is a response to those who offers an "alternative" or "3rd platform" as to the current Tibetan question by mainly stipulating a desisted approach and standing "in a unique position to support both without antagonizing either":

"History has attested to us in numerous instances where one "stands firm in their own ground" amidst a battle field, an euphemism for neutrality, evil keeps on wrecking havocs. Refinements are left to theoreticians, my friend, while history has never been a banquet of the virtuosos."

Friday, April 04, 2008

How Bad were You?

-a recollection of my childhood in China.

I was being labeled as a "badass" since I was 9 years old in the commie elementary school in Shanghai, I was always the unruly and "going against the grain" kinda kid.

Besides of getting detentions often--one thing I was so used to; getting my dad to be hauled into the teacher's office--one thing my dad got used to as well; putting gum in girls' hair and cutting their hair; messed with the hot and 20 something yr. old freshed-outa-college English teacher; fighting and bullying the other kids (some lost, most prevailed); being a pain-in-the-ass for the teachers most of the times as well as for the students' captains; grew my hair much longer than the accepted norm for boys and often was being nagged at by the policing student captains as well as teachers, and superintendent; often donned a black cap and adopted cool kid’s fashion as much as I could, contrary to the much detested mandatory school uniforms, and often lapsed on the required uniformed days; nonchalant about wearing the required commie red cravat, an icon of the inheritors of the great proletariat revolutionary tradition, even if I wore it, it won’t be long that the cravat would turned to something of a dirty messed-up rag by constantly chewing on it.

I publicly challenged commie orthodox version of the Korea War in 3rd grade during one of our Chinese classes's reading on the commie propagandist martyrdom of Huang Jiguang 黄继光, and retorted to the kids and the teacher that it was the North Korean commies in defiance of the U.N. peace accord, who breached 38th parallel into an out-all invasion of the whole Korean peninsula, and that the Chinese People’s Volunteer Army was actually fighting the U.N. coalition forces with great sacrifices. This statement has caused much disturbance and the teacher had begotten an impression that I was not only bad, but a "rotten apple" in the basket.

I once also tried to show off my eclectic book collection to my classmates. (which I indeed had thanks to my dad's patronage and including his own unique library, in which artistic female nudes were abundant and thus my home was used to be a popular hang-out joint for the like-minded fellow "rotten apples", and bear in mind this was the beginning of 1990's commie China and pre-internet era) I brought to school a pictured bible story book and was reading it in one of our free time reading sessions. I boldly went up to the teacher and asked her an unknown word next to an equally bold picture of Baroque-style voluptuous nude of some biblical heroine, at which time she responded with a grave frown and an ineffable consternation as if this was some absolutely disgusting effrontery in her face that the sheer Western poison was to prove hard to bear for her marx-lenin-maoist indoctrinated mindset. I thus went away in silence with somehow a secret gratification.

Since my 6th grade I started to openly challenge the literary status quo by adopting to the best of my knowledge, the traditional form of Chinese Character whenever I write, and thereby had often received reproach and condemnation which was at that point, a quotidian trifle to me. By the time when I was 12, and had assumed the role of persona non grata, if not public enemy to the pedagogic establishment and life was starting to be very difficult to co-exist with the system, my dad had salvaged me, along with his family in such a timely fashion, to transgress beyond the Red Wall in search of a new destiny of Freedom.

Thus spake a badass Chinese