Hacked By AdGhosT & Tayeb TN & bo hmid

 

 

 

 

 

close your eyes and listen Elfen Lied <3

Greets~:AdGhosT-- adel pro tn- Anonback Tnx - A_Ghacker - xvirus -Malousi Foryn - MaxKiller - Nexamos

Hacked By AdGhosT

Hacked By AdGhosT & Tayeb TN & bo hmid

 

 

 

 

 

close your eyes and listen Elfen Lied <3

Greets~:AdGhosT-- adel pro tn- Anonback Tnx - A_Ghacker - xvirus -Malousi Foryn - MaxKiller - Nexamos

Han Han: Why China cannot be a “grand culture” » The Peking Duck

Han Han: Why China cannot be a “grand culture”

Still busy, but wanted to get this on the record. When will this guy get a knock on the door in the middle of the night? You have to admire his chutzpah:

Do you know why China cannot become a grand cultural nation? It is because most of the time when we speak, we say “Dear leaders” first and those leaders are uncultured. Not only that, for they are also afraid of culture, they censor culture and they control culture. So how can such a nation become a grand cultural nation? Dear leaders, what do you say?

Actually, China has tremendous potential of becoming a grand cultural nation. Let me tell you a story. I am the chief editor of a magazine which has yet to publish. The Constitution states that every citizen has the freedom to publish, but the law also says that the leaders has the freedom not to let you publish. This magazine has run into some problems during the review process. There is a cartoon drawing. In it, there is a man without clothes — of course, this is unacceptable because the law says that we cannot exhibit the private parts in a publicly available magazine. I agree with that and I don’t have a problem with it. Therefore, I intentionally created an extra-large magazine logo that was placed over the illegal spot of the cartoon. But unexpectedly, the publisher and the censor told us that this was unacceptable too — when you cover up the middle part of a person, you are referring to the “Party Central” (note: “party” is a homonym for “block/shield” and “central” is “middle”). My reaction was like yours — I was awed and shocked. I thought to myself, “Buddy, it would be so wonderful if you could put your awe-inspiring imagination into literary creation instead of literary censorship!”

han_han_naked

______________

Richard Burger is the author of Behind the Red Door: Sex in China, an exploration of China's sexual revolution and its clash with traditional Chinese values.

The Discussion: 109 Comments

OK…so then the situation is….if it is reported by the west it is a lie but if the CCP tells you it is the truth.

Yeah…that makes sense 🙂

February 15, 2010 @ 7:50 am | Comment

OK…so then the situation is….if it is reported by the west it is a lie but if the CCP tells you it is the truth.

I don’t go by what the CCP says. I go by what everyone with a brain knows- the numbers about deaths in China were completely fabricated on the spot.

Unless you want to hash out your methodology for determining the numbers of deaths during Mao’s 26 year reign, no one worth anything is going to respect your estimates.

The Holocaust stands out as one exception where mass murder is accurately measured. This is because the Nazis more or less tracked every person they killed, either that or they created mass graves which were easily accounted for.

In China under Mao, there was chaos across several provinces during the CR, and a flood coincided with the GLF, which was likely to have killed 3-4 million people on its own.

Again, it’s best not to take Cold War propaganda seriously unless you just enjoy being a lemming.

February 15, 2010 @ 11:12 am | Comment

Merp, you might be the only one I’ve heard question that tens of millions of peasants starved to death during the Great Leap Forward. Even today’s young Chinese know this happened, even if they don’t directly blame Mao for the calamity. That many, many millions died is a matter of fact, not conjecture. Whether it was as high as 30 or 40 million I can’t say, but there is ample documentation of widespread death in the tens of millions from the famine. Have you read Hungry Ghosts?

I don’t question that hundreds of thousands of innocent Chinese were murdered and raped in the Nanjing massacre, because I’ve read the material about it (first-hand accounts, Iris Chang’s book, several history books on WWII). But you wouldn’t be Merp (ferin) if you didn’t reject any data about deaths under Mao while embracing wholeheartedly the numbers of Chinese killed under the Japanese. If there’s one thing you are, it’s predictable.

February 15, 2010 @ 1:12 pm | Comment

Because Ishihara has been defeated by overwhelming evidence to the contrary of his claims

Obviously those who continued to paid annual visits to the Yasukuni Shrine don’t think Ishihara was “defeated” in anyway. If they can be in self-denial, why can’t you?

February 15, 2010 @ 1:18 pm | Comment

Obviously those who continued to paid annual visits to the Yasukuni Shrine don’t think Ishihara was “defeated” in anyway. If they can be in self-denial, why can’t you?

Yes because someone who denies falsehoods is the same as someone who denies truth.

In other words people who refuse to believe the world is not 6,000 years old are no different from people who refuse to believe that the world is flat.

So lets go by your world, where everyone who says anything is to be believed lest they are compared to Holocaust deniers.

Hey, America killed 43,003,129 Martian babies and NASA covered it up! If you disagree you’re just like Hitler!

I take it you’re admitting you don’t know any facts at all and this is why you’re wasting everyone’s time with your hollow and circular arguments.

February 17, 2010 @ 5:01 am | Comment

To #105:
the world is a lot older than 6000 years old, and that’s not hard to prove. It’s also not hard to prove that the earth is not flat.

So in fact, there are things you can prove, and things you cannot. As for how many people’s deaths can be attributable to Mao, that probably falls under the category of things that cannot be proven. It’s only in those circumstances, where there is no categorical proof, that things come down to what you choose to believe. Clearly, you choose to believe something that others do not, and vice versa.

But it seems even you accept that millions of people died during the CR/GLF/famine/floods, and those weren’t “natural” deaths. So at the very least, those are on Mao since they occurred under his watch, even if you choose to believe that they didn’t result from his direct acts. Of course, we can then debate whether Mao’s actions resulted in the famine, but that would once again fall under the auspices of what you choose to believe.

February 17, 2010 @ 3:00 pm | Comment

As for how many people’s deaths can be attributable to Mao, that probably falls under the category of things that cannot be proven.

So you agree with me.

But it seems even you accept that millions of people died during the CR/GLF/famine/floods, and those weren’t “natural” deaths. So at the very least, those are on Mao since they occurred under his watch, even if you choose to believe that they didn’t result from his direct acts. Of course, we can then debate whether Mao’s actions resulted in the famine, but that would once again fall under the auspices of what you choose to believe.

It seems even you? Let me ask you, was your family actually affected by Mao’s rule or are you just trying to portray me as a rabid Communist-lover because you can’t be bothered to think of something more original?

Again, it’s more open to debate than WW2 atrocities. For one, there is not as much data on the subject.

February 19, 2010 @ 3:27 pm | Comment

“So you agree with me.”
—that would depend on what you’re suggesting that I’m agreeing with. If your point is that Mao is not definitely directly responsible for millions of deaths because there is no definitive proof of such direct responsibility, then yes, I can agree with that. But if you try to take it further by saying that, by extension, Mao should not be implicated in those deaths at all, then you’re on your own with that one. As I already suggested in #106, they occurred on his watch, and he was the top dog, so the buck stops with him.

“are you just trying to portray me as a rabid Communist-lover”
—let’s not kid ourselves. The self-portrait you paint is far better than any portrayal I can muster.

February 20, 2010 @ 1:14 pm | Comment

李敖直指韩寒:一进入知识境界就出局!

不久前李戡与大陆80后作家韩寒引发的「口水仗」自然是当日媒体关注的焦点,对此话题父子二人均给予回应,只不过或许是吸收之前没管好嘴巴的教训,李戡此番的回答显得中规中矩;相比之下,父亲李敖则老辣许多,他直指韩寒「要是只写小说、只赛车完全没有问题,但一进入知识的境界就出局了」。

一句「韩寒算老几」,韩寒的「粉丝」自然对说这话的李戡口诛笔伐,就连一些中立的网民也都指责他「小小年纪,过于狂妄」。今日父亲在旁,李戡锋芒明显收敛了不少,李敖笑言:「这是因为他知道不要抢了我的风头」。

「我们原本就是两个不相干的人,现在被动不动放在一起,我自己也是很意外。」说起韩寒,李戡言语里流露出些许无奈,对于外界指陈文茜力挺他是因为二人想借合伙攻击韩寒来炒作自己,李戡说「从来没有想过」。

「从那个时候起就没完没了,我一天到晚被媒体穷追不舍,其实这也没什么,就是运气比较差而已」,用有点自嘲的口气,李戡回答了记者的提问,他直言自己不明白,为什么大陆有那么多作家,就偏偏要天天把韩寒拿出来,「其实不一定要一直提韩寒的事情,我对大陆的一些人也是很了解的,我们可以多谈这方面的问题」。

李戡的老实回答倒叫身边的李敖坐不住了,他接过话筒补充道:「我的儿子很忠厚,不大说一些过分的话,我来做一个公道的评论」。

李敖举例说明一个人不能超越本位去生活。那么什么才是韩寒的本位,在李敖看来就是写小说。他说:「韩寒如果不超出他的本位,仅仅是写一些小说,他肯定可以写一辈子;赛车也可以尽管赛,因为这是健身的范畴,但他如果超出这个范围,就会很痛苦。」

他说,就好比你要和一个历史学家谈司马光的《资治通鉴》,你必须把294卷都通读一遍,「因为这是进入知识境界的先决条件」。

李敖说,韩寒现在的举手投足很显然难以在这个境界扎根,「我们希望他能够扎根进去」。

August 30, 2010 @ 1:17 pm | Comment

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.