科学其实也很脆弱:李森科事件——苏联生物科学史上的重大悲剧

(写在前面:李森科事件是典型的一神教极权造成的悲剧,苏联那些有良知的生物学家们遭受了和阿斯科里维萨里伽利略布鲁诺等人一样的迫害。至于斯大林,当然是斯大林教的教主了,斯大林本身就在东正教教会混过,后来模仿东正教创立了斯大林教,而毛贼在斯大林教的基础上创立了毛教。)

——节录《造就适者–DNA和进化的有力证据》肖恩·卡罗尔 著 杨佳蓉 译 钟杨 校

作者简介:

肖恩·卡罗尔(Sean B.Carroll,1960-),美国科学院院士,霍华德·休斯医学研究所研究员,威斯康星大学麦迪逊分校的遗传学教授。他是当代的一流生物学家。

【后记】前置

1964年10月,赫鲁晓夫下台。李森科主义在苏维埃科学院被投票否决。至此,李森科丧失了在苏联生物学界的垄断地位。李森科主义没有实现苏联人“面包会有的”的理想,反而使他们的分子生物学和遗传工程学遭到了不可救药的落伍,苏联失去了两代现代生物学家。

历史的教训在于给人类以教益。科学完全走出政治强权的阴影,完全走出李森科之流的阴影,这在今天仍然是人类的一项艰巨的任务。控制论的创立者诺伯特·维纳的话提供了这一事件的反思:“科学是一种生活方式,它只在人们具有信仰自由的时候才能繁荣起来。基于外界的命令而被迫去遵从的信仰并不是什么信仰,基于这种假信仰而建立起来的社会必然会由于瘫痪而导致灭亡,因为在这样的社会里,科学没有健康生长的基础。” http://www.china.com.cn/chinese/zhuanti/xxsb/580967.htm

 

李森科(Trofim Denisonvich Lysenko,1898-1976)是一个没有受过多少教育的农夫,却成为最高苏维埃的代表,并且跻身三个学术机构的会员,还担任苏联科学院遗传学研究所的所长。他曾3次被授予斯大林奖,获社会主义劳动英雄称呼,还8次获得代表最高荣誉的列宁勋章。李森科掌控苏联的生物、农业和医药等领域,时间超过25年。

他同时也将之摧毁。

1147313zt3s5s73c879ss1.jpg.thumb.jpg

李森科

 

李森科的故事很长,相关书籍有好几本,内容都是描写他的崛起,他的政治阴谋,他对斯大林“大清洗”行动的贡献,还有,尽管他科学素质低下,却像乌云般长期笼罩苏联生物学界。其中最感动人心的两本记述,出自李森科和当时苏联政治体制之下的受害者梅德韦杰夫(Zhores Medvedev)和索厄费尔(Valery Soyfer),前者的《李森科浮沉录》(The Rise and Fall of T.D.Lysenko),后者的《李森科和苏联科学悲歌》(Lysenko and the Tragedy of Sobiet Science),都是勇者笔下的巨著,作者为了真理作出重大的自我牺牲。

对于这桩重大悲剧,或者科学家们反抗李森科之后所遭遇的苦难,我无法在简短的叙述中作出什么评述。我会把重点放在一些关键的转折点上,显示李森科在当权时期对苏联生物界的毁灭性作用。

20世纪早期,孟德尔学说复兴之后,摩尔根(T.H.Morgan)引领了基因和遗传特性的研究,他用果蝇做实验,在遗传学领域有了前瞻性的重大发现,因而在1933年获得诺贝尔奖。人们终于知道基因是细胞内的特殊成分,也是突变发生之处,这些认知解释了物种的异同。遗传学立刻成为全世界的关键学科,在苏联也不例外。

然后李森科登场了。

李森科原在阿塞拜疆的占贾植物育种站担任助手,被委派了一项简单任务,这成了他暂露头角的工具。他的主任瓦维洛夫(Nikolai Vavilov)是苏联当时著名的生物学家,曾在贝特森门下学习。贝特森是英国科学家,他将孟德尔的学说推广到全世界,并且发明了“遗传学”这个词。瓦维洛夫也曾环游世界,搜集了许多植物标本,享誉国际。十月革命后的苏联,农业专家的首要任务之一就是快速提高农作物产量。在农业集体化时期(1928-1932年),苏联遭受到农作物歉收和牲口锐减的双重打击。

李森科尝试移植来自更高纬度的植物。他选了豌豆,这些豌豆应该可以撑到冬季,并在春季种植棉花时成了牲口的饲料。他很幸运,第一年冬天不太冷,他的计划相当成功,《真理报》(Pravda)大肆宣传李森科的成果,还把他封为“赤脚教授”,说他“现在拥有追随者、学生、还有块实验农田。农艺领域的杰出人物在冬天造访育种站,站在绿油油的农田前,感激地握着他的手”。这个愚鲁的小农夫见识到了宣传的力量。但是他的实验成功记录未能保持,第二年的冬季豌豆失败了。

他接着把注意力转向“春化处理”:夏季的农作物留下的种子经过低温干燥处理,便可在冬季派上用场。当他父亲在村里的农田种下春化处理过的小麦,他吸引了更多来自《真理报》的目光,随着成功的“实验”而来的,是许多歌功颂德的报道,宣称那是“非比寻常的大发现……来自卓越的实验数据”,以及“伟大的观点,前途不可限量”。索厄费尔将可资利用的证据加以归纳,得知这些收成数据都是假的,并解释为何会有这些报道:

他们马上相信奇迹的力量,认为手中握有无限希望。他们都被点石成金的虚假承诺所引诱,不肯面对现实、努力工作、巩固农业的基础。光明的未来就在前方,整个苏联生活在不切实际的神话与幻想中。普通的劳工大众就能创造出奇迹……这样的观点很符合他们的胃口。

李森科提倡春化作用,被提拔到新设在敖德萨的春化部门,就在那里,他发展出一套解释春化作用的理论。理论的基本原理是:植物的遗传变异是对环境影响的响应。这完全是拉马克学说的概念:生物能将自身得到的能力特征传给下一代。在当时的苏联,这个理论受到

广大回响,因为它引导大家由自然联想到人类,二者都可以塑造成合意的样貌,而且不受历史或遗传限制。

李森科对正在兴起的遗传学的认识仅限于皮毛,论战就此爆发。李森科与其他遗传学家(包括他的前辈瓦维洛夫)之间的冲突,成为苏联生物学接下来20年的写照。

李森科声名远播,农业部官员只听他们想听的。李森科的下属们很快就懂得,只能让他看他想看的结果。在他的方针之下,春化作物尚未经过进一步检验,就开始大量种植,在上一批作物种植失败的案例被写入记录之前,另一批作物又种了下去。李森科发表的种植成功记录多半只是个案或错误的数据,大部分都缺乏严格的实验对照。

李森科的“成功”,给使用遗传方法改良作物的育种人员造成了相当大的困扰,遗传育种缓慢而稳定的上升成果无法满足领导,当局要看到的是迅速上升的数据。

李森科与他的助手用“实践”结果来吸引注意力,在他们和那些做“纯科研”(比如研究果蝇)的科学家之间关系的紧张度节节上升。对正处于压力之下的苏联农业而言,遗传学可能成为绊脚石,况且它好像没啥效果,所以说遗传学是“有问题”的。尤其是,它是西方科学家提出的,形同资本主义的走狗。

李森科平步青云,对遗传学的攻击也随之变本加厉。针对遗传学而提出的“新理论”当中,李森科彻底否认基因,也否定世上有任何会自我复制的物质存在。

李森科的遗传学家之间的对垒更加公开、频繁、激烈,遗传学和恐怖的纳粹法西斯主义甚至被画上等号。与此同时,李森科的农业计划可说是连遭灾难:春化小麦田一片贫瘠,蔬菜供应量下降,一项马铃薯项目完全失败。长久以来食物短缺的情况因此更加恶化,遗传学家得到机会反击,群起讨伐:“如果大学者李森科能稍微顾及现代遗传学,他的工作会轻松许多……他否定遗传学和选择的遗传基础,却又没能发展出任何新的理论。”

1939年,双方进行了一场“公开”讨论,身为李森科昔日道是和支持者的瓦维洛夫毫不留情地批评道:“李森科不只是在和苏联的遗传学家作对,也在和现代生物学作对……他打着先进科技的旗帜,要我们回归19世纪前期的过时思想……我们要维护的是具有创意的理论、精确的实验,还有苏联及世界的现实。”

李森科如是回应:“我不承认孟德尔思想……也不认为孟德尔和摩尔根的遗传学是现代科学。”

1939年在爱丁堡举办的国际遗传学大会,连同身为大会主席的瓦维洛夫在内,没有一个苏联科学家出席。后来瓦维洛夫被判枪决,写了枪决,写了许多诉状后终于获准减刑,最终惨死狱中,时年55岁。

114825eqo5xagehsqqoget.jpg.thumb.jpg

瓦维洛夫

“李森科主义”笼罩苏联生物学界多年,直到1953年。1953年也是生物学值得大书特书的一年:沃森(James Watson)和克里克(Francis Crick)揭晓了DNA的双螺旋机构。所以说,遗传学本质已有了铮铮铁证,这能使得风向转离李森科和他的党羽吗?

才怪。

来源:blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-622531-773528.html

 

二战后许多纳粹战犯在梵蒂冈的帮助下逃往南美(资料摘录)

而在此时,处于对抗苏联和其他目的,不少国际组织帮了纳粹战犯的大忙,帮助他们逃离欧战,摆脱惩罚。2011年,美国哈佛大学研究员史坦纳契尔引据国际红十字会大批未公开的内部文件,撰成新书《纳粹在逃:希特勒的刽子手如何逃离欧洲》。新书披露,二次大战结束后,国际红十字会与梵蒂冈曾帮助数以千计纳粹战犯逃脱同盟国的追缉,前往外国展开新生活。

该书估计,光是1947年,就有约8000名前纳粹“党卫军”使用国际红十字会核发的文件,逃到英国与加拿大。该书另指称,梵蒂冈基于期盼基督教再度一统欧洲与恐惧苏联的心理,在知情下通过其难民委员会提供纳粹战犯假文件,协助他们逃脱。国际红十字会核发难民旅行文件时,也大量参酌梵蒂冈的资料。

链接:http://www.mingjinglishi.com/2012/07/blog-post_9224.html

西班牙是第一个纳粹分子活跃的逃亡中心。1946年,数百战犯和数千纳粹分子藏身西班牙。梵蒂冈对于移交这些寻求庇护者非常消极。教宗不愿意看到这些人被关在盟军战俘营中,而是把他们送上开往南美洲的轮船。

在意大利,同情纳粹的天主教牧师阿洛易斯.哈德尔帮助数名纳粹高官逃脱审判。部分纳粹官员已经处于盟军的拘留之下,由于没有确认身份的文件,他们都使用假名登记。哈德尔牧师认为自己协助纳粹官员使用假身份逃亡是遵从上帝的旨意。这些假身份文件来源于梵蒂冈难民组织,尽管这些身份文件并不是护照,但是可以用来申请并获得红十字会国际委员会发出的个人护照。理论上,红十字会应该对这些申请人进行背景调查,但实际上都是牧师或者主教的一句话决定。另外,还有人伪造甚至偷窃红十字会的文件来制作假身份。

根据已经解密的文件,在意大利帮助纳粹的牧师不止哈德尔一个人。神父约瑟夫.高勒夫利用自己经营慈善机构的身份,为数名匈牙利纳粹提供合法的红十字会护照。

规模最大的逃亡网络是由圣方济各会的克罗地亚牧师们组织的。这是一条精心挑选的路线,从奥地利到意大利港口城市热那亚。一些纳粹分子和乌斯塔沙成员(克罗地亚的纳粹组织)藏身奥地利,克罗地亚牧师们帮助他们穿过边境达到意大利。并为他们提供住宿,通常是在修道院,再安排从热那亚乘船达到南美。

这些举动自然引起了当地盟军的怀疑,梵蒂冈的高级官员拒绝了英国宪兵的搜查,并否认利用教堂庇护纳粹战犯。梵蒂冈外交官宣称这些牧师的行为只能代表他们自己,不能代表梵蒂冈的立场。

美国情报机构对此也是睁一只眼闭一只眼。这些从苏联占领区逃出来的战犯,按理说美国应该将他们交还给苏联。但是美国一方面担心他们在苏联受到不公正的审判,另一方面也希望利用这个渠道招募纳粹科学家为其效力。

链接:https://kknews.cc/zh-cn/history/eze3znz.html

阿富汗战争时期CIA训练伊斯兰原教旨主义圣战士并导致本拉登崛起(资料摘录)

美国认为阿富汗的冲突是冷战时期中对抗苏联的重要斗争之一。中央情报局在1979年执行旋风行动,透过巴基斯坦三军情报局作为中介,向圣战者提供武器弹药及资金,其中包括了著名的FIM-92“刺针”导弹[28][29][30]。该导弹造成苏联空军的作战飞机大量损失[31]巴基斯坦三军情报局从1979年到1992年训练了10万名圣战者游击队。在一些穆斯林国家中,一些组织开始号召志愿者到阿富汗参与打击苏联部队的作战。其中特别值得注意的是一个年轻沙特阿拉伯男子奥萨玛·本·拉登的组织最后演变成恐怖组织盖达组织[32][33]

来源:https://zh.wikipedia.org/zh-sg/%E8%8B%8F%E8%81%94%EF%BC%8D%E9%98%BF%E5%AF%8C%E6%B1%97%E6%88%98%E4%BA%89#cite_note-32

基地」組織首腦奧薩瑪.賓拉登於一九五七年三月十日出生,終年五十四歲。其父是葉門裔的沙烏地阿拉伯營建業鉅子,建立了號稱「沙國王室之外最富裕的家族」。賓拉登曾接受美國訓練,對抗侵略阿富汗的蘇聯部隊。一九九○年第一次波斯灣戰爭爆發,賓拉登轉而反美,更謀劃了九一一恐怖攻擊而受到美國追殺。

賓拉登是虔誠的瓦哈比派穆斯林,大學時研習經濟學、商業管理和土木工程,當年就熱衷「古蘭經」和「護教聖戰」,倡議穆斯林世界恢復施行伊斯蘭教法,公開反對猶太人、泛阿拉伯主義、社會主義和民主體制。

根據賓拉登自己的說法,一九七○年代後期,埃及與以色列和談、以及伊朗的伊斯蘭革命,改變了他的世界觀。一九七九年,賓拉登參與阿富汗對抗蘇軍的游擊戰,此後十年不斷接受美國中央情報局提供金錢、武器和訓練支援,還被當年的美國總統雷根稱為「自由鬥士」。

一九八四年賓拉登與阿札姆共同創立「Afghan Services Bureau」,運用他繼承的龐大家族財產,召募全球伊斯蘭聖戰士投入阿富汗反蘇游擊戰。一九八八年,賓拉登與阿札姆分道揚鑣,創建「基地」,逐漸發展成國際恐怖主義集團。

来源:http://blog.udn.com/geshela/5162840

1979年12月俄國入侵阿富汗引起伊斯蘭「聖戰士運動」(Mujahidin Movement)。由原本一個對抗蘇聯入侵阿富汗的「徵兵服務處」機構演變而來,此機構由賓拉登與巴勒斯坦宗教學者Abdullah Azzam

共同經營,招募從許多伊斯蘭青年來阿富汗加入反蘇聯的「聖戰士(mujahideen)運動。1980-1982年間,bin Laden赴巴基斯坦受練,並與美國CIA建立關係,藉由美、巴等國援助,開始號召數千人至阿富汗參與反蘇聯「聖戰」(Jihad)。
冷戰末期,隨著蘇聯軍隊撤出阿富汗後,bin Laden於1988-89年間籌組蓋達組織。其中不乏伊斯蘭聖戰組織領袖,例如Ayman al-Zawahiri、Muhammad Atef、Abu Zubaydah等。蓋達組織思想引導是由兩個重要核心相互聯繫而成:第一是Ayman al-Zawahiri的教義,渠被認為是賓拉登的智囊及蓋達組織的思想指導,是較為年長的領導者,也是1980年代領導阿富汗聖戰的核心人士;第二是1990年代初反西方文化衝擊,以「捍衛穆斯林世界」為伊斯蘭社會首要核心思想。

反平权“悖论”以及社会主义理论与资本主义理论背后的逻辑

如果你对各种政治经济理论感兴趣,那么你一定会发现有一点看起来非常奇怪:那些主张经济自由,鼓吹自由市场,鼓吹私有产权(私有制)的理论,经常和反平权反福利制度反再分配的理论搭配出现;而那些反对经济自由,反对自由市场,反对私有制的理论,却总是和支持平权支持福利制度支持再分配的理论搭配出现。

前者的典型例子是保守主义:宗教保守主義要求保存特定宗教的教義,有時會試著傳播這些教義的價值觀,又或者會試圖將這些價值觀寫入法律條文。宗教保守主義也可能會支持現世的傳統。有時候宗教保守主義可能會感到其自身與當地的文化產生衝突。而在一些國家,兩個或多個宗教的保守主義者也可能會產生衝突,兩派都宣稱自己的觀點才是正確的,並指責對方的觀點。

經濟保守主義延伸了財政保守主義對於金融政策的保守態度,主張政府不應該隨意干預市場的運作。有時候這種保守態度也延伸至小政府的哲學。經濟保守主義支持自由市場、以及自由放任的經濟政策。在意識形態上,經濟保守主義可以追溯至古典自由主義的傳統,亚当·斯密[2]弗里德里克·哈耶克米爾頓·佛利民路德維希·馮·米塞斯都是經濟保守主義的代表,因此經濟保守主義也被稱為經濟自由主義

保守主义的主要鼓吹者中有很多新教徒(在美国他们自称福音派),而新教鼓吹“资本主义精神”,鼓吹私有产权神圣不可侵犯,但同时完全反对平权,敌视民主。

以及新自由主义:哈耶克为种族隔离洗地,支持萨拉查皮诺切特等右翼独裁政权,鼓吹一神教(《致命的自负》中哈耶克鼓吹一神教保留了有益的传统,呵呵,大概是右翼独裁传统),米塞斯为法西斯主义洗地,弗里得曼为皮诺切特洗地外加三次去中国当坦克国师,还无视六四屠杀鼓吹中国“自由”,“繁荣”,撒切尔反对平权敌视同性恋者,还鼓吹穷人穷困是他们个人的问题。

还有自由意志主义:事實上,自由意志主義者將任何由政府所發動,類似於強制性重新分配財富的政策都視為是被合法化了的偷竊行為;無論這個手段是經由個人行動、或是國家機器強徵稅賦。也因此他們反對以課稅作為資金來源的公共服務,例如郵政、運輸、社會保險、公共教育和保健事業(雖然往往鼓勵以私人方式投資這些服務)。

無政府資本主義則反對全部的稅賦,排斥任何政府提供的保護服務,主張那是不必要的。他們希望政府遠離司法和保護的服務,認為這些服務應該由私人團體所進行。無政府資本主義者主張,小政府主義者讓政府壟斷保護的服務,將造成政府能以此制定一切不合實際的限制,而強迫在任何方面建立制度化的體制都將會產生不良後果。

看看,主张的完全就是丛林哲学,富人为所欲为。

至于法西斯主义和其分支纳粹主义,我想我不用多说了,无论是墨索里尼还是希特勒,都和大公司们勾结得非常开心:

法西斯主义与资本主义——大企业如何从希特勒的兴起中获得巨额利润的

法西斯主义的劳工政策

你不觉得这其中存在一个悖论吗?哈耶克等芝加哥学派的代表人物和其信徒们天天鼓吹财产带来自由,私有产权捍卫自由,公司制如何如何伟大,公司如何如何作为独立团体反抗政府暴政,个人自由如何如何宝贵,社会主义如何如何通往奴役之路,福利国家大政府如何如何危险……..光看这些,你会觉得他们是非常激进的自由主义者,完全反对奴役和压迫的存在;可是,他们同时又为右翼独裁政权洗地,敌视民主,敌视同样反对奴役和压迫的独立工会,反对平权,反对福利制度,这些不是和自由冲突吗?至于自由意志主义就更自打脸了,一边反对对自由的侵害,一边鼓吹必然侵害自由的丛林哲学社会(丛林哲学这词真是侮辱丛林了,丛林里的大部分动物是不会为了贪欲去虐杀自己的同类的。)

而社会主义呢?除了挂羊头卖狗肉的主张国家资本主义,敌视民主的毛派中有些人反平权之外,大部分托派和所有社会民主派都是明确支持民主支持平权支持捍卫所有人的人权与自由的,与此同时反对资本主义者鼓吹的经济自由概念,反对私有制,否定私有产权。

你现在是不是觉得社会主义也在自打脸?

其实,无论是社会主义,还是保守主义,还是新自由主义,还是自由意志主义,都没有自打脸。

“什么?都没有自打脸?怎么可能?”

这么说吧,如果一个人的观点自相矛盾,那是不奇怪的,因为这个人的观点有些并不是自己思考出来的,而是被后天政府教会父母等人洗脑的结果,所以和自己思考出来的观点会发生矛盾。

但如果一套理论要让人接受,那就不能自相矛盾,准确来说,它必须做到逻辑自洽。但请注意,逻辑是否自洽和理论依据,理论前提,以及理论结果的正确与否并无关联,也就是说完全错误的理论也可以是逻辑自洽的。

举个例子:基督教,基督教依据的bible实际上有很多自相矛盾之处,但bible理论的核心是,bible是上帝的语录,而上帝无论说什么都是宇宙真理,理解的要执行,不理解的也要执行,不得怀疑,不得思考,一切都是上帝的安排。也就是说,上帝今天说煤是黑的,那么是上帝正确;上帝明天说煤是白的,那么上帝还是正确的,不得怀疑,不得思考。

而国族主义和其他一神教也是类似的(包括毛贼神教),上帝(无论是国家还是民族还是耶和华还是毛泽东还是先知穆罕默德)无论说什么,信徒们都必须要服从。这就是一神教理论的通行逻辑,这一逻辑本身是自洽的:上帝是宇宙真理,是神,是不会出错的,所以上帝说的一切都是正确的,都是必须去服从和执行的。至于为什么上帝是宇宙真理,这属于对理论依据的质疑了。

“这么说,无论是社会主义理论还是资本主义的那几个支持理论,逻辑也都是自洽的?”

是的,他们的逻辑都是自洽的。其追随者也许会出现逻辑不自洽,但理论创立者和负责鼓吹辩护的代表人物,其逻辑必须自洽,否则光是自打脸这一点就足够毁灭理论本身了,更别提吸引追随者了。马克思为了证明资本主义的剥削本质,可是写了三卷资本论来进行论证;而新自由主义哈巴狗们为了反驳马克思,可是创立了无数洗地理论来论证剥削不存在啊。

那么,既然他们的逻辑都是自洽的,那么你会感觉到自打脸,原因只有一个:你把保守主义新自由主义自由意志主义鼓吹的“经济自由”“个人自由”理解为了人的自由,把“神圣不可侵犯的私有产权(私有制)”理解为了人的权利(也就是人权)。

很多人的确是这么理解的,包括曾经的我也是如此。但后来我通过查阅资料和思考,最终发现:“经济自由”和“个人自由”不是人的自由,“神圣不可侵犯的私有产权(私有制)”也不是人权!

是不是很惊讶呢?容我慢慢解释:资本主义哈巴狗们鼓吹的“个人自由”,本质上是个人在“自由市场”中与其他人相互竞争的“自由”,也就是所谓的“自由竞争”;而“经济自由”则是企业主们为了利润可以不择手段胡做非为的自由。很显然,为了利润不择手段胡做非为的“自由”必然会伤害到其他人的自由和人权,例如企业为了利润游说政府侵蚀民主,制作假冒伪劣商品毒害消费者,盗窃用户隐私进行精准推广广告把用户变成数字奴工,压榨虐待劳工导致劳工生病甚至直接惨死于事故……当然,有些新自由主义者会说他们的“自由竞争”是在法律限制范围内的,问题在于,资本主义本身就是一种压迫性的制度,老板们为了掠夺剩余价值奴役压迫劳工,为了利润最大化强迫劳工加班,为了让劳工们服从洗脑虐待他们,敌视独立工会,否定劳工权利,人为制造失业大军以压低工资和控制工人,污染环境破坏生态以剥削地球,对消费者进行欺诈和消费主义洗脑,用资本攻击干掉其他老板以垄断市场,为了扩张市场和寻找便宜原材料进行殖民侵略,而资本主义的这些特性更是直接导致了每隔十几年一次的经济危机,无数人在经济危机中被迫喝西北风(大资本家们除外)。

所以,资本主义本质上是反人权反自由的。所谓的“自由竞争”,本质上是每个人对每个人的战争。所谓的“自由市场”,本质上是老板们自由的互相进行资本攻击同时独裁压迫劳工们的市场。

当然,新自由主义和自由意志主义以及保守主义哈巴狗们是死活不承认这点的,但只有当“资本主义本身是一种压迫性的制度”这点成立时,其理论逻辑才是自洽的。既然资本主义是反人权的,那么这些资本主义哈巴狗们的理论总是和反平权反福利敌视民主搭配也就不奇怪了,因为这些也都是反人权的。

接下来再让我们看看“私有产权神圣不可侵犯”这一表述。什么是私有产权?也许你第一时间会想到的,是你的个人财产吧。但事实并非如此。私有本身是一个混淆的概念,个人财产可以被称作私有财产,独裁公司拥有的生产资料和资本也可以被称作私有财产,但很显然这两者根本不是一个性质的存在。独裁公司拥有的生产资料和资本,可以拿去游说政府破坏民主,可以拿去压榨劳工的剩余价值以获取利润,可以拿去在股市等金融领域进行投机赌博,也可以拿去成立鼓吹仇恨的组织分裂被压迫的人民们…….但对于绝大部分个人来说,他们的个人财产能用来做这些事吗?当然不能,除非他们本身就是老板们,靠压榨剩余价值攫取大量资本作为“个人财产”,或者作为政客们和老板们分赃,或者作为老板们的高级走狗(例如高管,例如参与大数据杀熟等欺诈行为的经济学家,参与对用户的隐私盗窃的程序员们)被老板们重金收买。

而这些资本主义哈巴狗们鼓吹的“私有产权”,很明显指的是独裁公司拥有的生产资料和资本,而不是个人财产,因为他们亲爱的资本主义从来都不尊重个人财产,从圈地运动到强拆,从四处殖民掠杀到丢洋垃圾污染中国人的水和土地和空气,从制造博帕尔惨案到抢掠属于尼日利亚人民的石油,这些罪恶资本主义的哈巴狗们从来都是装作没看见的。

而社会主义理论否定私有制,就是否定对生产资料和资本的私人独裁占有,而这一点是资本主义的核心。

那么现在你应该明白为什么社会主义也没有自打脸了:社会主义的理论逻辑是反压迫逻辑,所以社会主义支持平权,支持福利,反对压迫性的资本主义制度,也就是反对其核心私有制,当然更反对其“经济自由”“自由竞争”等主张。

简单来说,资本主义的逻辑核心是:老板们的利润第一,所以一切都要为了老板们攫取利润服务;而社会主义的逻辑核心是:人权第一,所以一切都要为人服务,人的尊严是最重要的。所以,资本主义及其哈巴狗理论支持压迫,而社会主义理论反对压迫。

最后,有人说:但是支持资本主义的人中也有一群进步右派呀,他们一边认可资本主义,一边支持平权呀。是的,的确存在这么一批人,但他们的理论就是逻辑不自洽的,自打脸的(既然在政治上坚持民主,那凭什么在经济上就支持老板独裁专制?既然鼓吹自由竞争这种丛林哲学概念,那么凭什么又要别人怜悯弱势?既然认为不平等没问题,那么凭什么又去鼓吹机会公平?),所以他们在面对逻辑自洽的极右纳粹时表现得极为无力,这不是偶然而是必然。而社会主义者就能把极右纳粹们骂出五条街去,因为平权搭配社会主义才是逻辑自洽的。

 

 

 

 

 

秘鲁光辉道路历史与现实介绍——兼驳斥新自由主义谎言

看到有新自由主义哈巴狗发了这样一篇文章:这个书生靠什么拯救了国家?

不奇怪,又是一篇充满谎言的垃圾,不过光辉道路这个组织在中文圈没什么靠谱资料,所以我接下来引用的打脸资料都是英文。当然,我会进行适当翻译和解读的。

首先,让我们来看看开头:“光辉道路是秘鲁的一个极左恐怖组织。1980年代初期开始,他们进行了大量的暴力活动,成为秘鲁社会的一个严重问题。这个组织奉行极左的意识形态,声称要为穷人谋利益。创办者阿比马埃·古兹曼是一个哲学教授,他发明了一系列稀奇古怪的理论,核心思想就是使用暴力推翻现有的政权,建立全新的无产阶级国家,恢复印加帝国的原始集体主义农业。他们敌视现代市场经济和民主制度。他们在秘鲁各地到处使用暴力:爆炸、暗杀、破坏经济设施、袭击公共场所、伏击政府军,袭击庄园,抢劫银行和工商企业。袭击警察是光辉道路组织最热衷的事情”

事实是:光辉道路的确是恐怖组织,也的确使用了大量暴力,但说他们“声称要为穷人谋利益,建立全新的无产阶级国家,恢复印加帝国的原始集体主义农业”这些是谎言,而且这一段也没说光辉道路到底是如何起家的。

真相是:“The Shining Path (Sendero Luminosos) Maoist guerrillas were formed by university professor Abimael Guzman in the late 1960s and were based upon Marxist ideology. At the time, Guzman was teaching philosophy at San Cristóbal of Huamanga University, while engaging in left-wing politics. He attracted many like-minded young academics to his cause of staging a radical revolution in Peru. He visited the Peoples Republic of China in the mid-1960s and his collection of inchoate ideas was profoundly influenced by Maoist theories, which became the basis of the ideological foundations of the Shining Path. In 1980, he launched his campaign to overthrow the Peruvian government.”(1)

光辉道路(Sendero Luminosos)毛派游击队是由大学教授 Abimael Guzman 在二十世纪六十年代后期组建的,并以马克思主义的意识形态为基础。 当时,Guzman 在San Cristóbal 的Huamanga大学教授哲学,同时从事左翼政治。 他吸引了许多志同道合的年轻学者加入了他在秘鲁的激进革命事业。 他在六十年代中期访问了中华人民共和国,其观点深受毛泽东主义理论的影响,成为光辉道路组织的思想基础。 在1980年,他发起了推翻秘鲁政府的运动。

大致概括:光辉道路起源于Abimael Guzman在1960s后期在大学里建立的组织,一开始是基于马克思主义的,但是当他在1960年代中期去了一次中国后,就被毛贼的思想所吸引,而毛贼思想成为了他建立光辉道路时的基础思想。

Shining Path was founded in 1970 by Abimael Guzman (“Comrade Gonzalo”), a philosophy teacher inspired by the writings of Peruvian Marxist, Jose Carlos Mariategui. The name Shining Path came directly from a passage in Mariategui’s writing, “Marxism-Leninism will open the shining path to revolution.(2)

Shining Path由1970年由Abimael Guzman(“Gonzalo同志”)创立,这是一位受秘鲁马克思主义者Jose Carlos Mariategui作品启发的哲学教师。 “光辉之路”这个名字直接来自马里亚泰伊写作的一段话,“马克思列宁主义将为革命打开光辉的道路。

那么他具体采用了毛贼思想的哪些内容呢?

“When it first launched the internal conflict in Peru in 1980, its goal was to overthrow the state and replace it with “New Democracy“. ”(3)
它在1980年首次在秘鲁发起内部冲突时,其目标是推翻现政权并以“新民主主义”取而代之。

“don’t think so, according to their “theoretical” framework, they were (and are still according to their true believers in Europe and the USA) in the stage of “New Democracy” on which Mao, their god wrote in 1940

我不这么认为,根据他们的“理论”框架,他们的阶段是在“新民主主义”阶段(并且仍然是,根据他们在欧洲和美国的真正信徒的言论),这是他们的上帝,毛,在1940年写的。

Quote:

摘录:

“The republic will take certain necessary steps to confiscate the land of the landlords and distribute it to those peasants having little or no land, carry out Dr. Sun Yat-sen’s slogan of “land to the tiller”, abolish feudal relations in the rural areas, and turn the land over to the private ownership of the peasants. A rich peasant economy will be allowed in the rural areas. Such is the policy of “equalization of landownership”. “Land to the tiller” is the correct slogan for this policy. In general, socialist agriculture will not be established at this stage, though various types of co-operative enterprises developed on the basis of “land to the tiller” will contain elements of socialism.”(4)

共和国将采取必要步骤,没收地主土地,并将其分发给土地少或无土地的农民,执行孙中山先生的“耕者有其田”的口号,废除农村的封建关系 把土地转变为农民的私有田地。 农村将允许富农经济。 这就是“土地所有权平等化”的政策。 “耕者有其田”是这一政策的正确口号。 总的来说,社会主义农业不会在现阶段建立起来,尽管在“耕者有其田”的基础上发展起来的各类合作社企业将包含社会主义的要素。

这两段大致意思是:光辉道路的目标是实现毛贼的新民主主义,而新民主主义的本质是资本主义,允许农村的富农经济的存在,并进行土改把土地转变为农民的私有田地。

所以光辉道路并没有主张要“恢复印加帝国的原始集体主义农业”,至于为穷人谋利益之类的,我没有查到资料明确显示他们这么说过,但如果他们拿这话去欺骗穷人,那也不奇怪。

但是,他们真的试图去帮助穷人了吗?

“事实也正是如此,光辉道路组织虽然臭名昭著,但实际上他们得到了秘鲁底层人民的支持甚至拥护。秘鲁落后的经济状况、腐败的政府、恶性的通货膨胀断绝了底层人民改善自己生活的可能。这些人在绝望之余,就转而相信恐怖组织的宣传和诱惑,认为只有依靠光辉道路这样的暴力恐怖组织才能打破压制他们的社会结构,使他们摆脱贫困,得到更好的生活。”

光辉道路当然有人支持,但要把锅都推到秘鲁底层人民的头上,我只能说这真的很恶心。“他们在秘鲁各地到处使用暴力:爆炸、暗杀、破坏经济设施、袭击公共场所、伏击政府军,袭击庄园,抢劫银行和工商企业。袭击警察是光辉道路组织最热衷的事情”这段说得好像光辉道路只袭击资产阶级一样,事实上,受光辉道路伤害最大的,恰恰就是底层人民!

看资料吧:“Initially, Shining Path targeted local authorities (mayors, governors and mid-level bureaucrats) police barracks, and local political leaders. However, experts believe that by 1983, the group gradually began to target wealthy peasants and state agency heads with violence and the threat of abduction, as well as launched comparable attacks against left-wing activists, grass-roots organizers, and left-liberal intellectuals. This change in strategy eventually proved counterproductive for the insurgents because they were not able to capture the hearts and minds of the average Peruvian by their violent tactics. Instead, villagers were subject to the unremitting brutality by Shining Path and were unprotected by the military and intelligence services. Both the first Alan Garcia administration and his successor, Alberto Fujimori, used intimidation to tromp out local citizens. The Garcia government, as did the Belaúnde government before it, used tortures and randomly assassinated citizens for their alleged backing or at least sympathy for Shining Path.”(1)

最初,“光辉之路”以地方当局(市长,省长和中层官员)警察营房和当地政治领导人为袭击目标。但专家认为,到1983年,该组织逐渐开始以暴力和绑架威胁为目标,向富裕农民和国家机构负责人发起攻击,并对左翼活动家,草根组织者和左翼自由派知识分子发起类似袭击。(注意这段,光辉道路是敌视左派的,他们敌视并袭击那些真正在为穷人说话的人)这种战略上的变化最终证明叛乱分子会适得其反,因为他们无法通过暴力手段来俘获普通秘鲁人的心灵和思想。相反,村民们受到光辉道路的无情暴行,并且得不到军方和情报部门的保护。第一个Alan Garcia政府和他的继任者Alberto Fujimori利用恐吓手段来攻击当地公民。Garcia政府和之前的Belaúnde政府一样,都利用酷刑和随机暗杀那些被声称支持或至少同情光辉道路的公民们(这才是有人支持光辉道路的真正原因,独裁政府的残暴把一些人推向了同样残暴的光辉道路)。

The Lucanamarca massacre was a massacre of 69 peasants in and around the town of Lucanamarca, Peru that took place on April 3, 1983. The massacre was perpetrated by the Shining Path, the Maoist guerrilla organization that launched the internal conflict in Peru.(5)
Lucanamarca屠杀事件发生在1983年4月3日发生在秘鲁Lucanamarca镇附近的69名农民身上。屠杀事件是在秘鲁发动内部冲突的毛派游击队组织光辉道路发动的。

 

The Shining Path never gained much support among the Peruvian public. Rural villagers, often torn between supporting the rebels or the government, were eventually targeted by the guerrillas for participating in elections or not providing supplies.

光明之路从未获得秘鲁公众的大力支持。 农村村民们经常在支持叛乱分子或政府之间徘徊,经常因为参加选举或不提供补给品成为游击队员们的目标。

The Shining Path was distinct from other insurgencies across Latin America in idealizing the “blood quota.” Dying for the cause was romanticized through extensive rhetoric such as “crossing the river of blood.” The results were not only a fiercely determined corps of militants, but also harsh treatment of its victims. The Shining Path quickly attracted the world’s attention for its lethal brutality. The rebels often held public executions — sometimes mass executions — by stoning.(2)

“光明之路”与拉丁美洲的其他叛乱分子在理想化“血液配额”方面有着明显的不同。通过扩展的修辞,例如“穿越血脉之河”,他们造成的死亡被浪漫化了。结果是,这不仅是武装分子激烈的决心, 而且他们残忍对待其受害者。 “光辉之路”以其致命的残酷而迅速引起全世界的关注。 反叛分子经常举行公开处决 – 有时是大规模处决 – 通过石刑。

The condition of the poor continued to worsen, but the many calls for national insurrection by Shining Path have not been successful. Peruvians were certainly poor, but the violence of Shining Path was repugnant to the impoverished middle classes and, in a certain way, provoked indifference among the peasants. Certainly the murder of many cells of the Maoists, some in massacres within prisons, took a heavy tool on the direction of the movement.

穷人的状况变得越来越糟,但光辉道路发动的许多国家级别的叛乱并未成功。 秘鲁人显然很穷困,但光辉道路的暴力令贫穷的中产阶级感到厌恶,并在很明显的程度上让农民认为他们和秘鲁政府并没有不同。 当然,毛派分子的许多在牢房内进行的谋杀,其中一些在监狱内的屠杀,对运动造成了恶劣的影响。

In his many interviews, pamphlets and revolutionary literature, Abimael Guzman has never offered a political vision that could be embraced by the industrial workers or the unemployed. The new State, a vague phrase, like “after the revolution” in the ’30s, is not a promise of a brighter future, but demands indoctrination, work and obedience. In a tropical nation that still takes its siesta time very seriously, this is a letdown to any potential revolutionary.(6)

在他的许多采访,小册子和革命文学中,Abimael Guzman从未提供可被工人们或失业者所接受的政治愿景。 这个新的国家,像30年代的“革命之后”这样一个模糊的短语,不是一个更光明的未来的承诺,而是要求灌输,工作和服从。 在一个非常重视午休时间的热带国家,这会造成任何潜在革命者的失望。

这里提到的”要求灌输,工作和服从“,我具体解释一下:Abimael Guzman除了学了毛贼的“新民主主义革命”和“农村包围城市”(所以他根本没去想过要帮助城市工人和失业者)之外,还学到了毛贼神教中最重要的一点:造神。

相关资料:What little military training they did receive consisted mostly of Maoist principles on guerrilla warfare.33 This highlights the central importance that Guzmán placed on ideology, as well as his callous attitude towards human life. While the lives of the insurgents were clearly expendable, party discipline and faith in the leadership were not issues to be taken lightly.

他们所接受的小小的军事训练大部分都是毛泽东主义游击战争的原则。这凸显了Guzmán将意识形态放在核心地位,以及他对人类生命的冷酷态度。 尽管叛乱分子的生命显然是可以消耗的,但党的纪律和对领袖的信仰并不能被轻视。(也就是说Guzmán根本不在乎其追随者的生命,他只在乎追随者对他的信仰和他对党的控制。)

Through the development of an ideology that placed supreme importance on the role of the central leadership, and which asked party activists to continually expose their own failings and publicly admit their weaknesses, Guzmán was able to transform himself into a hero, a legend, and the unquestioned leader of the Shining Path. Following his adoption of the nom de guerre Presidente Gonzalo, Guzmán’s status steadily rose. He presented his ideas as Pensamiento Gonzalo (Gonzalo Thought), a “development” of Marxist-Leninist theory, blending Mariátegui’s analysis of the political and economic situation in Peru with the application of Mao Zedong’s revolutionary precepts, practices, and guerrilla strategies.34 Despite the rising death toll of both guerrillas and civilians, faith in Pensamiento Gonzalo seemed to remain strong among party militants.(7)

通过发展把中央领袖放在超级重要的作用的位置上的意识形态,并要求党内积极分子不断暴露自己的缺点并公开承认自己的弱点,Guzmán成功将自己变成英雄,传奇人物,和光辉道路毫无疑问的领袖。在成为Gonzalo总统后,古兹曼的地位稳步上升。 他提出了作为马克思列宁主义理论的“发展”的Pensamiento Gonzalo(Gonzalo思想),将Mariátegui对秘鲁政治和经济形势的分析与毛泽东的革命理念,实践和游击战略相结合。 尽管游击队员和平民的死亡人数不断上升,对Pensamiento Gonzalo的信仰看起来在党内激进分子中保持强劲。

They also engaged in “Criticism and Self-criticism“, a Maoist practice intended to purge bad habits and avoid the repetition of mistakes. During the existence of the First Military School, members of the Central Committee came under heavy criticism. Guzmán did not, and he emerged from the First Military School as the clear leader of the Shining Path.[9](3)

他们还从事“批评与自我批评”,这是一种旨在消除不良习惯并避免重犯错误的毛派实践。 在第一军校的存在期间,中央委员受到了严厉的批评。 Guzmán没有,他从第一军校出来,成为光辉道路的明确领导者。

很显然,光辉道路是一个极为极权独裁的一神教组织,党内所有人都追随Guzmán,并把Guzmán的言论当成宇宙真理。这种组织有一个很明显的缺陷是:当宇宙真理领导人出事之后,组织就会陷入混乱,从而衰落。

而事实是光辉道路也的确因此衰落了:“就在这一年,光辉道路的头目古兹曼被捕,并最终被判处终身监禁。随后,光辉道路的其他领导人也先后被捕入狱。虽然还有零星的恐怖行动,但作为一个恐怖组织,光辉道路已经无可挽回地成为历史了。”

这话倒是没说错,把光辉道路的衰落说成是经济学家德·索托的功劳,纯属吹牛。事实上,1997-2016年,秘鲁基尼系数长期处在0.438-0.563之间(8),2018年人均GDP为7,198美元,排在世界第82位(9);而秘鲁2017年的民主指数为6.49(10),为部分民主,比马来西亚(6.54)得分都低(马来西亚的民主程度很低,诸位可自行查阅资料)。而在Alberto Fujimori下台之前,秘鲁政府一直以来都是独裁政权。

基尼系数长期超过警戒线,人均GDP很低,民主程度很低,这样一个国家,有什么可吹捧的?

事实上,光辉道路也并没有成为历史:Since the arrest of its leader, Abimael Guzmán, in September 1992, the Shining Path has operated at a greatly decreased level but it remains active.162

自1992年9月其领导人AbimaelGuzmán被捕后,Shining Path的活跃级别大大下降,但仍保持活跃.(11)

The Shining Path is currently led by Victor Quispe (“Comrade Jose”).

光辉道路目前由Victor Quispe(“Jose同志”)领导。

In 2011, Shining Path lawyers submitted 360,000 signatures to register as a new political party, Movadef. The electoral authority denied the registration on the grounds the organization advocated terrorism.

2011年,Shining Path律师提交了36万个签名(注意秘鲁2018年人口为32,168,697(9),签名者比例相当于在中国超过1500万人)以作为新政党登记,名为Movadef。 选举当局以该组织倡导恐怖主义为由拒绝登记。

While the Shining Path once posed a serious threat to topple the state, the group is partially focused on drug trafficking, while other factions attempt to register as a political party and free Abimael Guzman, who is now 80 years old.(2)

虽然“光辉道路”曾经要推翻国家,构成了严重威胁,但现在该组织部分侧重于贩毒,而其他派系则试图登记成为政党,并要求释放现年80岁的Abimael Guzman。

On March 25, 2008 Shining Path rebel members working with drug traffickers killed a police officer and wounded 11 on anti-drug patrols. The unit is said to have been led by one of Shining Path’s last remaining leaders—Comrade Artemio. Comrade Mono—who eventually was caught in March of this year was, in fact, part of another branch of the Shining Path hierarchy.

2008年3月25日,与毒贩合作的光明之路叛军成员杀害了一名警察,并伤害了11名在禁毒巡逻中的警察。 据说该单位由光明之路的最后一位剩余领导人Artemio同志领导。 Mono同志最终在今年3月被捕,事实上,他是光明之路另一个分支等级的的一部分。

In recent months, there have been accounts of political kidnappings and murders which could be an indication of the recrudescence of the Shining Path. Other reports have told of police forces closing in on them. Shining Path is rumored to be financing their reviving terrorist activities by charging for protecting drug-traffickers and intertwining the organization with coca production and distribution networks. Consequently, Peruvians may soon find themselves dealing with an increase in drug violence, a growing insurgency and an increase in government repression.(1)

近几个月来,有关政治绑架和谋杀的案件可能是光明之路复兴的迹象。 其他报告说警方正在镇压他们。 有传言称光明之路收费保护毒贩并将其与古柯生产和销售网络交织在一起来资助他们恢复恐怖活动。 因此,秘鲁人可能很快就会发现自己面对的是毒品暴力事件的增加,叛乱活动的增加和政府镇压的增加。

On March 18, 2017, Shining Path snipers killed three police officers in the Ene Apurimac Valley.  (3)

2017年3月18日,光明之路的狙击手在Ene Apurimac山谷中杀死了三名警察。

相关新闻链接:Recent Attack on Peru Police Shows Shining Path Still Strong

社会主义者们是完全否定光辉道路这种疯子一神教恐怖组织的,而事实是光辉道路也一直都在敌视和袭击社会主义者,并拒绝民主。这样的一个恐怖组织,自然得不到多数支持,再加上其领袖进了监狱,衰落是必然结果。即便如此,秘鲁的穷困和高度不平等也给了光辉道路活动空间,要我说真正能够消灭光辉道路的生存土壤的,只有经济民主+政治民主的社会民主主义。秘鲁的历史与现实也说明了一点:不是社会主义,就是野蛮!

参考资料:

  1. http://www.coha.org/the-rise-and-fall-of-shining-path/
  2. https://perureports.com/shining-path/
  3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shining_Path
  4. https://libcom.org/forums/history/shining-path-peasants-27042011
  5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucanamarca_massacre
  6. https://libcom.org/library/peru-ideology-apocalypse-shining-path-what
  7. https://libcom.org/history/women%E2%80%99s-popular-movement-shining-path-contradictions-patriarchal-women%E2%80%99s-emancipation
  8. https://knoema.com/atlas/Peru/GINI-index#
  9. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peru
  10. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index#Democracy_Index_by_country_(2017)
  11. https://www.hrw.org/legacy/about/projects/womrep/General-56.htm

 

 

 

The Stolen Generations(澳大利亚政府把原住民儿童从父母手中夺走,对儿童强迫洗脑同化,待翻译)

Stolen Generation header image

Between 1910-1970, many Indigenous children were forcibly removed from their families as a result of various government policies.

Between 1910-1970, many Indigenous children were forcibly removed from their families as a result of various government policies. The generations of children removed under these policies became known as the Stolen Generations. The policies of child removal left a legacy of trauma and loss that continues to affect Indigenous communities, families and individuals.


What happened and why?

The forcible removal of Indigenous children from their families was part of the policy of Assimilation. Assimilation was based on the assumption of black inferiority and white superiority, which proposed that Indigenous people should be allowed to “die out” through a process of natural elimination, or, where possible, should be assimilated into the white community.[1]

Children taken from their parents as part of the Stolen Generation were taught to reject their Indigenous heritage, and forced to adopt white culture. Their names were often changed, and they were forbidden to speak their traditional languages. Some children were adopted by white families, and many were placed in institutions where abuse and neglect were common.[2]

Assimilation policies focused on children, who were considered more adaptable to white society than Indigenous adults. “Half-caste” children (a term now considered derogatory for people of Aboriginal and white parentage), were particularly vulnerable to removal, because authorities thought these children could be assimilated more easily into the white community due to their lighter skin colour.[3]

Assimilation, including child removal policies, failed its aim of improving the lives of Indigenous Australians by absorbing them into white society. This was primarily because white society refused to accept Indigenous people as equals, regardless of their efforts to live like white people.


Ruth’s story

When Ruth was 4 years old, she was separated from her mother on Cherbourng mission in Queensland. Ruth was 6 months old when she first arrived at Cherbourg. Times were tough; it was during the Depression, and Ruth’s mother had gone to Cherbourg seeking help for her ageing parents.

But once she arrived at the mission, Ruth’s mum was prevented from leaving. What was intended as a temporary visit became years of separation and control. “People would say it was for your own good, but my own good was to stay with my mum,” says Ruth.

At first Ruth was allowed to stay with her mum in the women’s dormitory. But eventually every child was removed to a separate dormitory. Ruth was 4 when she was taken from her Mum. “Once you were taken from your parents, you had no more connection with them,” she explains.

For a short time, Ruth still saw her Mum from a distance. But when Ruth was 5, her mother was sent away from Cherbourg and forced to leave her daughter behind.


Why does the Stolen Generations still matter today?

The forcible removal of Indigenous children from their families had a profound impact that is still felt today.

For the children who were taken: 

  • Many were psychologically, physically, and sexually abused while living in state care or with their adoptive families.
  • Efforts to make stolen children reject their culture often caused them to feel ashamed of their Indigenous heritage.
  • Many children were wrongly told that their parents had died or abandoned them, and many never knew where they had been taken from or who their biological families were.
  • Living conditions in the institutions were highly controlled, and children were frequently punished harshly, were cold and hungry and received minimal if any affection.
  • The children generally received a very low level of education, as they were expected to work as manual labourers and domestic servants (see Unfinished Business).
  • Medical experts have noted a high incidence of depression, anxiety, post traumatic stress and suicide among the Stolen Generations [4]

For their families:

  • Many parents never recovered from the grief of having their children removed.
  • Some parents could not go on living without their children, while others turned to alcohol as a coping mechanism.
  • The removal of several generations of children severely disrupted Indigenous oral culture, and consequently much cultural knowledge was lost.
  • Many of the Stolen Generations never experienced living in a healthy family situation, and never learned parenting skills. In some instances, this has resulted in generations of children raised in state care. [5]

What has been done about this?

In 1995, the Australian government launched an inquiry into the policy of forced child removal. The report was delivered to Parliament on the 26th May 1997. It estimated that between 10 per cent and 33 per cent of all Indigenous children were separated from their families between 1910-1970.

The report, Bringing Them Home, acknowledged the social values and standards of the time, but concluded that the policies of child removal breached fundamental human rights. The Keating government commissioned the inquiry into the Stolen Generations, but the Howard government received the report. Howard’s government was skeptical of the report’s findings, and largely ignored its recommendations.


Stop and think: losing the ones you love most

What would you do if one day the police turned up to your home and took your children away simply because of the colour of your skin? How would you feel knowing you had no way of getting your children back and no higher authority to appeal to?

Imagine if one day you were at home with your parents and government officials came and took you away to live with strangers, and told you that you had to learn to live, eat, speak and dress differently than you were used to. How might that experience continue to affect you throughout your life?

Almost every Indigenous family has been affected by the forcible removal of one or more children across generations. Many people, families and communities are still coming to terms with the trauma that this has caused.

https://www.australianstogether.org.au/discover/australian-history/stolen-generations

The Residential School System(加拿大的以“文明”为名的儿童古拉格,待翻译)

Residential Schools

Children’s dining room, Indian Residential School, Edmonton, Alberta. Between 1925-1936. United Church Archives, Toronto, From Mission to Partnership Collection.Prime Minister Stephen Harper, official apology, June 11, 2008

 

What was the Indian residential school system?

The term residential schools refers to an extensive school system set up by the Canadian government and administered by churches that had the nominal objective of educating Aboriginal children but also the more damaging and equally explicit objectives of indoctrinating them into Euro-Canadian and Christian ways of living and assimilating them into mainstream Canadian society. The residential school system operated from the 1880s into the closing decades of the 20th century. The system forcibly separated children from their families for extended periods of time and forbade them to acknowledge their Aboriginal heritage and culture or to speak their own languages. Children were severely punished if these, among other, strict rules were broken. Former students of residential schools have spoken of horrendous abuse at the hands of residential school staff: physical, sexual, emotional, and psychological. Residential schools provided Aboriginal students with an inferior education, often only up to grade five, that focused on training students for manual labour in agriculture, light industry such as woodworking, and domestic work such as laundry work and sewing.

Residential schools systematically undermined Aboriginal culture across Canada and disrupted families for generations, severing the ties through which Aboriginal culture is taught and sustained, and contributing to a general loss of language and culture. Because they were removed from their families, many students grew up without experiencing a nurturing family life and without the knowledge and skills to raise their own families. The devastating effects of the residential schools are far-reaching and continue to have significant impact on Aboriginal communities. Because the government’s and the churches’ intent was to eradicate all aspects of Aboriginal culture in these young people and interrupt its transmission from one generation to the next, the residential school system is commonly considered a form of cultural genocide.

From the 1990s onward, the government and the churches involved—Anglican, Presbyterian, United, and Roman Catholic—began to acknowledge their responsibility for an education scheme that was specifically designed to “kill the Indian in the child.” On June 11, 2008, the Canadian government issued a formal apology in Parliament for the damage done by the residential school system. In spite of this and other apologies, however, the effects remain.

What led to the residential schools?

European settlers in Canada brought with them the assumption that their own civilization was the pinnacle of human achievement. They interpreted the socio-cultural differences between themselves and the Aboriginal peoples as proof that Canada’s first inhabitants were ignorant, savage, and—like children—in need of guidance. They felt the need to “civilize” the Aboriginal peoples. Education—a federal responsibility—became the primary means to this end.

Prime Minister Sir John A. Macdonald commissioned journalist and politician Nicholas Flood Davin to study industrial schools for Aboriginal children in the United States. Davin’s recommendation to follow the U.S. example of “aggressive civilization” led to public funding for the residential school system. “If anything is to be done with the Indian, we must catch him very young. The children must be kept constantly within the circle of civilized conditions,” Davin wrote in his 1879 Report on Industrial Schools for Indians and Half-Breeds (Davin’s report can be read here.)

In the 1880s, in conjunction with other federal assimilation policies, the government began to establish residential schools across Canada. Authorities would frequently take children to schools far from their home communities, part of a strategy to alienate them from their families and familiar surroundings. In 1920, under the Indian Act, it became mandatory for every Indian child to attend a residential school and illegal for them to attend any other educational institution.1

Male students in the assembly hall of the Alberni Indian Residential School, 1960s. United Church Archives, Toronto, from Mission to Partnership Collection.

Female students in the assembly hall of the Alberni Indian Residential School, 1960s. United Church Archives, Toronto, from Mission to Partnership Collection.

Living conditions at the residential schools

The purpose of the residential schools was to eliminate all aspects of Aboriginal culture. Students had their hair cut short, they were dressed in uniforms, and their days were strictly regimented by timetables. Boys and girls were kept separate, and even siblings rarely interacted, further weakening family ties.2  Chief Bobby Joseph of the Indian Residential School Survivors Society recalls that he had no idea how to interact with girls and never even got to know his own sister “beyond a mere wave in the dining room.”3  In addition, students were strictly forbidden to speak their languages—even though many children knew no other—or to practise Aboriginal customs or traditions. Violations of these rules were severely punished.

Residential school students did not receive the same education as the general population in the public school system, and the schools were sorely underfunded. Teachings focused primarily on practical skills. Girls were primed for domestic service and taught to do laundry, sew, cook, and clean. Boys were taught carpentry, tinsmithing, and farming. Many students attended class part-time and worked for the school the rest of the time: girls did the housekeeping; boys, general maintenance and agriculture. This work, which was involuntary and unpaid, was presented as practical training for the students, but many of the residential schools could not run without it. With so little time spent in class, most students had only reached grade five by the time they were 18. At this point, students were sent away. Many were discouraged from pursuing further education.

Abuse at the schools was widespread: emotional and psychological abuse was constant, physical abuse was meted out as punishment, and sexual abuse was also common. Survivors recall being beaten and strapped; some students were shackled to their beds; some had needles shoved in their tongues for speaking their native languages.4  These abuses, along with overcrowding, poor sanitation, and severely inadequate food and health care, resulted in a shockingly high death toll. In 1907, government medical inspector P.H. Bryce reported that 24 percent of previously healthy Aboriginal children across Canada were dying in residential schools.5  This figure does not include children who died at home, where they were frequently sent when critically ill. Bryce reported that anywhere from 47 percent (on the Peigan Reserve in Alberta) to 75 percent (from File Hills Boarding School in Saskatchewan) of students discharged from residential schools died shortly after returning home.6

In addition to unhealthy conditions and corporal punishment, children were frequently assaulted, raped, or threatened by staff or other students. During the 2005 sentencing of Arthur Plint, a dorm supervisor at the Port Alberni Indian Residential School convicted of 16 counts of indecent assault, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Douglas Hogarth called Plint a “sexual terrorist.” Hogarth stated, “As far as the victims were concerned, the Indian residential school system was nothing more than institutionalized pedophilia.”7

The extent to which Department of Indian Affairs and church officials knew of these abuses has been debated. However, the Royal Commission of Aboriginal Peoples and Dr John Milloy, among others, concluded that church and state officials were fully aware of the abuses and tragedies at the schools. Some inspectors and officials at the time expressed alarm at the horrifying death rates, yet those who spoke out and called for reform were generally met with silence and lack of support.8  The Department of Indian Affairs would promise to improve the schools, but the deplorable conditions persisted.9

Some former students have fond memories of their time at residential schools, and certainly some of the priests and nuns who ran the schools treated the students as best they could given the circumstances. But even these “good” experiences occurred within a system aimed at destroying Aboriginal cultures and assimilating Aboriginal students.

The shift away from the residential school system

“Sister Marie Baptiste had a supply of sticks as long and thick as pool cues. When she heard me speak my language, she’d lift up her hands and bring the stick down on me. I’ve still got bumps and scars on my hands. I have to wear special gloves because the cold weather really hurts my hands. I tried very hard not to cry when I was being beaten and I can still just turn off my feelings…. And I’m lucky. Many of the men my age, they either didn’t make it, committed suicide or died violent deaths, or alcohol got them. And it wasn’t just my generation. My grandmother, who’s in her late nineties, to this day it’s too painful for her to talk about what happened to her at the school.”

– Musqueam Nation former chief George Guerin,
Kuper Island school
Stolen from our Embrace
, p 62

European officials of the 19th century believed that Aboriginal societies were dying out and that the only hope for Aboriginal people was to convert them to Christianity, do away with their cultures, and turn them into “civilized” British subjects—in short, assimilate them. By the 1950s, it was clear that assimilation was not working. Aboriginal cultures survived, despite all the efforts to destroy them and despite all the damage done. The devastating effects of the residential schools and the particular needs and life experiences of Aboriginal students were becoming more widely recognized.10 The government also acknowledged that removing children from their families was severely detrimental to the health of the individuals and the communities involved. In 1951, with the amendments to the Indian Act, the half-day work/school system was abandoned.11

The government decided to allow Aboriginal children to live with their families whenever possible, and the schools began hiring more qualified staff.12 In 1969, the Department of Indian Affairs took exclusive control of the system, marking an end to church involvement. Yet the schools remained underfunded and abuse continued.13 Many teachers were still very much unqualified; in fact, some had not graduated high school themselves.14

In the meantime, the government decided to phase out segregation and begin incorporating Aboriginal students into public schools. Although these changes saw students reaching higher levels of education, problems persisted. Many Aboriginal students struggled in their adjustment to public school and to a Eurocentric system in which Aboriginal students faced discrimination by their non-Aboriginal peers. Post-secondary education was still considered out of reach for Aboriginal students, and those students who wanted to attend university were frequently discouraged from doing so.15

The process to phase out the residential school system and other assimilation tactics was slow and not without reversals. In the 1960s, the system’s closure gave way to the “Sixties Scoop,” during which thousands of Aboriginal children were “apprehended” by social services and removed from their families. The “Scoop” spanned roughly the two decades it took to phase out the residential schools, but child apprehensions from Aboriginal families continue to occur in disproportionate numbers. In part, this is the legacy of compromised families and communities left by the residential schools.

The last residential school did not close its doors until 1986.16

Long-term impacts

It is clear that the schools have been, arguably, the most damaging of the many elements of Canada’s colonization of this land’s original peoples and, as their consequences still affect the lives of Aboriginal people today, they remain so.

—John S. Milloy, A National Crime

The residential school system is viewed by much of the Canadian public as part of a distant past, disassociated from today’s events. In many ways, this is a misconception. The last residential school did not close its doors until 1986. Many of the leaders, teachers, parents, and grandparents of today’s Aboriginal communities are residential school survivors. There is, in addition, an intergenerational effect: many descendents of residential school survivors share the same burdens as their ancestors even if they did not attend the schools themselves. These include transmitted personal trauma and compromised family systems, as well as the loss in Aboriginal communities of language, culture, and the teaching of tradition from one generation to another.

According to the Manitoba Justice Institute, residential schools laid the foundation for the epidemic we see today of domestic abuse and violence against Aboriginal women and children.17 Generations of children have grown up without a nurturing family life. As adults, many of them lack adequate parenting skills and, having only experienced abuse, in turn abuse their children and family members. The high incidence of domestic violence among Aboriginal families results in many broken homes, perpetuating the cycle of abuse and dysfunction over generations.

Many observers have argued that the sense of worthlessness that was instilled in students by the residential school system contributed to extremely low self-esteem. This has manifested itself in self-abuse, resulting in high rates of alcoholism, substance abuse, and suicide. Among First Nations people aged 10 to 44, suicide and self-inflicted injury is the number one cause of death, responsible for almost 40 percent of mortalities.18 First Nations women attempt suicide eight times more often than other Canadian women, and First Nations men attempt suicide five times more often than other Canadian men.19 Some communities experience what have been called suicide epidemics.

Many Aboriginal children have grown up feeling that they do not belong in “either world”: they are neither truly Aboriginal nor part of the dominant society. They struggle to fit in but face discrimination from both societies, which makes it difficult to obtain education and skills. The result is poverty for many Aboriginal people. In addition, the residential schools and other negative experiences with state-sponsored education have fostered mistrust of education in general, making it difficult for Aboriginal communities and individuals to break the cycle of poverty.

In the 1980s, residential school survivors began to take the government and churches to court, suing them for damages resulting from the residential school experience. In 1988, eight former students of St. George’s Indian Residential School in Lytton, B.C., sued a priest, the government, and the Anglican Church of Canada in Mowatt v. Clarke. Both the Anglican Church and the government admitted fault and agreed to a settlement. Another successful case followed in 1990, made by eight survivors from St. Joseph’s school, in Williams Lake, against the Catholic Church and the federal government.20

The court cases continued, and in 1995, thirty survivors from the Alberni Indian Residential School filed charges against Arthur Plint, a dorm supervisor who had sexually abused children under his care. In addition to convicting Plint, the court held the federal government and the United Church responsible for the wrongs committed.

The Anglican Church publicly apologized for its role in the residential school system in 1993, the Presbyterian Church in 1994, and the United Church in 1998. Most recently, in April 2009, Assembly of First Nations leader Phil Fontaine accepted an invitation from Pope Benedict XVI and travelled to Vatican City with the goal of obtaining an apology from the Catholic Church for its role in the residential school system. After the meeting, the Vatican issued a press release stating that “the Holy Father expressed his sorrow at the anguish caused by the deplorable conduct of some members of the Church and he offered his sympathy and prayerful solidarity.”21

Truth and Reconciliation Commissions

Truth and Reconciliation Commissions are used around the world in situations where countries want to reconcile and resolve policies or practices, typically of the state, that have left legacies of harm. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission is a non-adversarial way to allow residential school survivors to share their stories and experiences and, according to the Department of Indian Affairs, will “facilitate reconciliation among former students, their families, their communities and all Canadians” for “a collective journey toward a more unified Canada.

Meanwhile, the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples had been interviewing Indigenous people across Canada about their experiences. The commission’s report, published in 1996, brought unprecedented attention to the residential school system—many non-Aboriginal Canadians did not know about this chapter in Canadian history. In 1998, based on the commission’s recommendations and in light of the court cases, the Canadian government publicly apologized to former students for the physical and sexual abuse they suffered in the residential schools. The Aboriginal Healing Fund was established as a $350 million government plan to aid communities affected by the residential schools. However, some Aboriginal people felt the government apology did not go far enough, since it addressed only the effects of physical and sexual abuse and not other damages caused by the residential school system.

In 2005, the Assembly of First Nations launched a class action lawsuit against the Canadian government for the long-lasting harm inflicted by the residential school system. In 2006, the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement was reached by the parties in conflict and became the largest class action settlement in Canadian history.22 In September 2007, the federal government and the churches involved agreed to pay individual and collective compensation to residential school survivors. The government also pledged to create measures and support for healing and to establish a Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

The Indian Residential School Survivors Society was formed in 1994 by the First Nations Summit in British Columbia and was officially incorporated in 2002 to provide support for survivors and communities in the province throughout the healing process and to educate the broader public. The Survivors Society provides crisis counselling, referrals, and healing initiatives, as well as acting as a resource for information, research, training, and workshops.23 It was clear that a similar organization was needed at the national level, and in 2005, the National Residential School Survivors Society was incorporated.24

Official government apology

I have just one last thing to say. To all of the leaders of the Liberals, the Bloc and NDP, thank you, as well, for your words because now it is about our responsibilities today, the decisions that we make today and how they will affect seven generations from now.

My ancestors did the same seven generations ago and they tried hard to fight against you because they knew what was happening. They knew what was coming, but we have had so much impact from colonization and that is what we are dealing with today.

Women have taken the brunt of it all.

Thank you for the opportunity to be here at this moment in time to talk about those realities that we are dealing with today.

What is it that this government is going to do in the future to help our people? Because we are dealing with major human rights violations that have occurred to many generations: my language, my culture and my spirituality. I know that I want to transfer those to my children and my grandchildren, and their children, and so on.

What is going to be provided? That is my question. I know that is the question from all of us. That is what we would like to continue to work on, in partnership.

Nia:wen. Thank you.

—Beverley Jacobs, President, Native Women’s Association of Canada, June 11, 2008

Read the full transcript and watch the video here.

We feel that the acceptability of the apology is very much a personal decision of residential school survivors. The Nisga’a Nation will consider the sincerity of the Prime Minister’s apology on the basis of the policies and actions of the government in the days and years to come. Only history will determine the degree of its sincerity.

—Kevin McKay, Chair of the Nisga’a Lisims Government, June 12, 2008

In September 2007, while the Settlement Agreement was being put into action, the Liberal government made a motion to issue a formal apology. The motion passed unanimously. On June 11, 2008, the House of Commons gathered in a solemn ceremony to publicly apologize for the government’s involvement in the residential school system and to acknowledge the widespread impact this system has had among Aboriginal peoples. You can read the official statement and responses to it by Aboriginal organizations here. The apology was broadcast live across Canada (watch it here).

The federal government’s apology was met with a range of responses. Some people felt that it marked a new era of positive federal government–Aboriginal relations based on mutual respect, while others felt that the apology was merely symbolic and doubted that it would change the government’s relationship with Aboriginal peoples.

Although the apologies and acknowledgements made by governments and churches are important steps forward in the healing process, Aboriginal leaders have said that such gestures are not enough without supportive action. Communities and residential school survivor societies are undertaking healing initiatives, both traditional and non-traditional, and providing opportunities for survivors to talk about their experiences and move forward to heal and to create a positive future for themselves, their families, and their communities.

We are on the threshold of a new beginning where we are in control of our own destinies. We must be careful and listen to the voices that have been silenced by fear and isolation. We must be careful not to repeat the patterns or create the oppressive system of the residential schools. We must build an understanding of what happened to those generations that came before us.

— Wayne Christian, Behind Closed Doors: Stories from the Kamloops Indian Residential School, 2000

By Erin Hanson

The Residential School System

罗马尼亚禁妇女堕胎 设“月经警察”监控

独裁与荒诞就像是一对孪生兄弟。有什么样的专制独裁,就会有什么样的荒诞事情发生。

在前罗马尼亚共产党总书记齐奥塞斯库所推行的政策中,最恐怖、最荒诞的要算他的禁止节育和人口增长政策。为了提高人口数量,增强国力,1966年齐奥塞斯库废除了以前关于个人可以自由流产的法律,实施了禁止堕胎的政策。他宣称,胎儿是社会的财富,不生育孩子的人就是背叛国家的人。他规定,禁止离婚,每对罗马尼亚夫妻至少要生四个孩子。紧接着,国家颁布法令,节育和堕胎都属违法,不能受孕的女性要交纳税金,堕胎者将受到判刑和囚禁,妇女月经期要受到严格地检查与盘问。

为保证政令畅通,依据齐奥塞斯库的指令,执法者纷纷进驻机关、工厂、农村、学校以及各个单位,对妇女进行严格的监控,督促她们每月必须做妇科检查,以确保没有使用避孕工具;对那些避孕的妇女和默许堕胎的医生一经查出,严厉打击、处罚监禁。罗马尼亚的老百姓把这些执法者鄙夷地称作“月经警察”。在恐怖的高压下,许多绝望的妇女铤而走险,试图偷渡多瑙河,到邻国匈牙利寻求庇护,但在边境线往往被当作叛国者,遭到罗马尼亚士兵用机关枪的扫射。

前罗马尼亚共产党总书记齐奥塞斯库(图右)

在这项政策实施一年之后,罗马尼亚的婴儿出生率翻了一番,成绩显赫。但地下流产与堕胎的服务也随之出现,怀孕妇女的死亡率不断上升。更让齐奥塞斯库感到闹心和棘手的是,随着婴儿的大量出生,妇产医院的设备、妇产专家、产科医师、儿科医师以及妇幼保健工作者严重缺乏,这可不是单靠行政命令就能马上解决的。仅仅一年中,罗马尼亚的婴儿死亡率就增长了百分之一百四十五点六。消息传出,全世界哗然,各国政要、媒体纷纷谴责:这简直就是“现代社会的滥杀无辜”。面对国内外政治压力,为掩盖这种愚蠢而可怕的后果,齐奥塞斯库下令,婴儿出生一个月以后,再发出生证。如此一来,那些在未满月中夭折的婴儿就不会填写在死亡婴儿的统计当中了。正如一位罗马尼亚作家指出:“很多婴儿从来没有合法地生存过。”这项政策的恶果,还不仅局限于此。在罗马尼亚的儿童养育院及收容所中,有许多被遗弃或身体及精神残疾的孩子,他们的生存状况更加令人震惊。

对于这一段荒诞而悲惨的历史,罗马尼亚年轻的电影导演克里斯蒂安·蒙久(CristianMungiu),在他执导的影片《四月三周两天》,通过两个女大学生一天中所遭遇的堕胎经历,把独裁专制统治对人性的摧残和压迫,以及在这样的环境下,人性的丑陋、冷漠、甚至是邪恶,表现得淋漓尽致。

这部影片讲述的故事发生在1987年的寒冬,此时距离柏林墙倒塌、齐奥塞斯库的独裁政权垮台还有两年。

影片一开始,女大学生奥蒂莉亚(Ottila)正在为同一宿舍的同学嘉碧塔(Gabita)秘密准备行李。奥蒂莉亚匆忙地奔波在简陋的宿舍楼和肮脏的穷街陋巷,向男友借钱,购买走私进口香烟、食品、香皂,预订饭店。所做这一切,就是因为嘉碧塔怀孕了,而且要赶在期末考试之前堕胎。

婴儿

在当时的罗马尼亚,流产和堕胎都是违法行为,且要根据流产者或堕胎者怀孕的时间决定刑期和监禁的长短。为了躲避处罚,她们找到了一个叫毕比(Bebe)的医生私自堕胎,一场噩梦就此开始。

奥蒂莉亚几经周折最终找到一家廉价的旅馆,但医生毕比借口手术费太低,不愿承担犯法坐牢的风险。为了能使嘉碧塔尽快手术,面对毕比医生“任何错误都要付出代价”的要挟,奥蒂莉亚不得不承受羞辱,与毕比做爱,嘉碧塔躲在门外饮泪而泣。

死婴从嘉碧塔体内排出,被包裹在一块白色的浴巾里,手掌般大小,略具人形,上面沾满鲜血和污秽。奥蒂莉亚久久地凝视着尸体,沉默不语。

由于害怕和紧张,奥蒂莉亚迟迟没有找到丢弃死婴尸体的地方。最后,她跌跌撞撞地冲进一个居民楼,慌乱地把装着尸体的书包塞进了楼道里的垃圾箱内。在仅有的一点光亮里,奥蒂莉亚静静地站在那个垃圾箱前,仿佛为自己心灵的失落、为自己所做的一切忏悔。

处理掉死婴的尸体,一切的恐惧与不安都结束了,两个女孩坐在旅馆的餐厅里,默默地等待她们的晚餐。不远处,是一场婚宴的欢闹场面。而这一天,正是嘉碧塔怀孕整整四月三周两天。

自1966年避孕与堕胎被齐奥塞斯库政权明令禁止以来,罗马尼亚人民便丧失了一种基本权利。当人们摆脱不了性爱的天性,为自己种下的爱情之果面临抉择时,他们所遇到竟是罪与非罪的选择。到底国家有没有权力操纵人伦意向?到底能不能强行为私生活立法?对于这些,齐奥塞斯库自有主张。他是党的最高领导,因而他的意志就代表了党的意志,任何人都必须服从。在他统治的国度中,“国王不仅要坐在国王的位置上,而且还要坐在上帝的位置上”。

婴儿

其实,禁止堕胎的法令并非只有罗马尼亚一家,但为什么其他国家并未出现像齐奥塞斯库政权下这样极端、这样缺乏人性的残忍?

1991年,爱尔兰一位十四岁的女孩子被她朋友的父亲强奸后怀孕。罪犯受到了法律的严惩,但无辜受害的女孩也陷入法律对她的伤害。因为,法院援引宪法中“国家承认尚未出生的婴儿生命权”的条文,阻止女孩进行流产。于是,这个事件使整个爱尔兰陷入了一场政治和宗教上的危机。三分之二的爱尔兰人,包括当初投票支持宪法的人,都对女孩的遭遇表示同情。最终,政府支付了诉讼费用,女孩获准可以到爱尔兰以外地区自由旅行,以妥协方式结束了这场危机。

爱尔兰的妥协与齐奥塞斯库的僵硬,充分体现出两种制度的截然不同。美国历史学家鲁道夫·J·鲁梅尔在他1994年出版的《因政府而死》一书中估算了一个数字:在二十世纪,单是种族杀戮的死难者就达一点七亿人。这一数字中几乎不含政治迫害和战争所造成的“正常”死难者人数,同样也不含该书出版后发生的种族杀戮死难者人数,比如在卢旺达或者巴尔干地区发生的种族杀戮死难者。在人类历史中,如此多的人死于暴政,在此前是亘古未有的。

在《通往奴役之路》这本书中,哈耶克认为,坏事不一定是坏人干的,而往往是一些“高尚的”理想主义者干的,特别是,那些极权主义暴行的原则是由一些可尊敬的和心地善良的学者们奠定基础的;“自由”常常在“自由”的名义下被取消,“理性”则是在把“理性”推到至高无上的地步被摧毁的。因此,一种合理的政治制度一定是适应人性的政治制度,而不是强迫改变人性的政治制度,如果一种政治制度是建立在改变人性的基础上,这样的政治制度不可避免地会带来暴力与恐怖。

二十世纪八十年代初,齐奥塞斯库颁布了《大罗马尼亚打字机法》。根据该法,每一个罗马尼亚的公民、企业、事业、机关、学校等单位,凡拥有打字机必须要得到警方的许可,领取使用执照;要成为打字员也必须照此办理,并且要将所打字的样品同时上报。如果打字机需要修理,其使用者及其打字机都需要更新执照。任何继承打字机的罗马尼亚人,都必须将此上交政府当局,或寻求取得使用它的资格;如果不把打字机的键盘上交警方,即使损坏的打字机也不得私自处理,否则严加处罚。

罗马(rome)

自1965年齐奥塞斯库坐上罗共总书记这个职位后,便如钢梁上的铆钉——固定不动,一直到1989年被枪杀。除党的总书记外,他还担任罗马尼亚国务委员会主席、团结阵线主席、国防委员会主席、武装部队和爱国卫队总司令、经济社会发展最高委员会主席、罗马尼亚共和国总统,可谓至尊无上。据英国《经济学家》杂志统计,齐奥塞斯库家族成员在党政军界担任要职的不下三十人。其夫人埃列娜·齐奥塞斯库任罗共中央干部委员会主席,第一副总理,实际上是罗共二号人物;其兄马林·齐奥塞斯库,任国防部副部长兼罗军最高政委;其弟伊利埃·齐奥塞斯库和安德鲁察·齐奥塞斯库,分别任内务部干部培训中心主任和罗马尼亚驻奥地利使馆商务参赞;其妻弟格奥尔基·波特列斯库任全国工会主席;齐奥塞斯库的小儿子尼库·齐奥塞斯库任共青团中央第一书记

http://www.qw13.com/kaogufaxian/201805153343.html

杀人魔王耶和华

                  ·方舟子·

    “你们要称谢耶和华,因他本为善,他的慈爱永远长存。”
                        ——诗136:1

    这篇诗篇的作者可够幽默的,他一句一个上帝的“慈爱永远长存”,却列数
耶和华的杀人业绩:“击杀埃及人之长子”、“把法老和他的军兵推翻在红海里
”、“击杀大君王”、“杀戮有名的君王”、“杀戮亚摩利亚王西宏”、“杀巴
珊王噩”等等。其实这一切,不过是杀人如麻的耶和华的战绩中的极少的一部分
罢了。我读《圣经》,每每读得毛骨悚然,这位被基督徒视为爱的化身的耶和华,

是多么的可怕、可怖、可憎,人若有一丁点的过错,必欲置之死地而后快,那位
撒但跟他相比,简直是小巫见大巫。老实说,我怀疑《圣经》中的这位耶和华,
才是真正的撒但,几千年来的耶和华信徒都拜错了神了。而每当我看到纯洁善良
的小姑娘对血淋淋的《圣经》看得津津有味,我总是觉得不可思议。人,确实是
一种难以理解的动物。
    让我们先来看看耶和华亲口颁布的律法,据耶酥的教诲,即使天地毁灭,这
些律法也不可废。不知今天的十六亿基督徒,还有多少人在奉行这些惨无人道的
律法?

一、惨无人道的上帝律法:

    凡是不受割礼的男子,都必须除掉。(创17:14)〔由此看来,今天的
中国男人,百分之九十九点九九都是该杀的。)

    行邪术的女人,不可容她存活。(出22:18)〔中世纪时大肆屠戮所谓
的女巫,根据大概就在此了。今天的巫婆、女气功师之流,自然也都该死。)

    偏向交鬼和行巫术者,死。(利20:6)〔看来神汉、男气功师们也逃不
过。〕

    星期日是安息日,敢在这一天工作者,死。(出31:14,35:2)〔
看来在星期天仍然勤勤恳恳去上班的无数海外中国学人也都该杀。〕

    咒骂父母者,死。(利20:9,太15:6)〔你要是跟父母顶嘴,一不
小心说漏了嘴,得,大难临头了。〕

    自然,上帝同样在乎人们骂不骂他:亵渎耶和华的名字的,用石头打死。(
利24:16)〔上帝啊,我已经说了“杀人魔王耶和华”了,只好闭眼等着石
头砸下来了。〕

    以色列人,或以色列人中寄居的外人,把自己的儿女献给摩洛的,处死。(
利20:2)〔上帝怎么那么在乎以色列人的婚姻?〕

    曾经有教徒为中世纪的屠戮异教徒辩解说:他们不是按圣经行事的,因为圣
经宣扬的是爱,不会宣扬对异教徒的恨。这样的教徒,大概是从来不读圣经的,
中世纪的基督徒,比今天的基督徒对上帝的律法要忠诚得多:

    祭祀别神,不单单祭祀耶和华的,那人必要灭绝。(出22:20〕

    对于异教徒,要把他们全部杀死,连他们城里的牲畜都要用刀杀尽。(申
13:1)

    如果你的同胞弟兄、儿子、妻子或有过命交情的朋友引诱你信别的神,你要
大义灭亲,先下手把他们统统杀死。(申13:6)〔幸好,我只是引诱别人不
要信神,没有引诱他们信别的神。〕

    自然,上帝对人类性行为更是乐于管束,以死威胁:

    凡与兽淫合的,不管是男是女,总要把他治死。(出22:19,利20:
15,20:16)

    男人与男人发生性行为的,处死。(利20:13)〔男同姓恋者,全部该
杀!)

    新娘子被发现不是处女,没有贞洁的证据,用石头打死。(申22:21)
〔各位现代女性,千万别结婚!〕

    与邻居之妻行淫的,奸夫淫妇一起治死。(利20:10)〔不仅仅是朋友
妻不可欺,而是邻居妻,不可欺,而且连女方也处死。〕

    还有管得更宽的:与有夫之妇私通的,奸夫淫妇一并治死。(申22:22
)

    与继母行淫的,二人一起治死。(利20:11)

    与儿媳行淫的,二人一起治死。(利20:12)

    人若娶妻,又娶了岳母的,三人一起用火烧死。(利20:14)

    人若取姊妹,无论是异母同父还是异父同母,一起杀死。(利20:17)

    妻子来月经的时候同房的,夫妻一起杀死。(利20:18)〔这也管得太多

了吧,至于吗?〕

    祭司的女儿若行淫,用火烧死。(利21:9)

    若有处女已许配丈夫,有人在城里遇见她,与她行淫,要把这二人一起带到城

门,用石头打死。(申22:24)〔做女人真惨,左右是个死。〕

    若男子在田野遇见已经许配人的女子,强与她行淫,将男的治死。女的姑且念

她孤立无助,就饶了她。(申22:25)

    这可都是上帝亲口颁布的律法,如果你胆敢不遵守会怎么样呢?上帝就诅咒你

要吃自己儿女的肉!(利26:29,申28:53)〔要是上帝的诅咒灵验,做

今天的基督徒们的儿女可就惨了。)


二、杀人如草、罄竹难书

    圣经中的上帝,喜怒无常,动不动就成批成批地杀人过瘾。以下所举,只是
耶和华杀人业绩中的一部分。

    上帝因为后悔造了人,便发大洪水把除挪亚一家之外的人全部淹死,连其他
生物也跟着遭殃。(创6:5)

    犹大叫儿子俄南跟守寡的嫂子同房,为哥哥生子立后。俄南不想让哥哥有后
,同房时遗精在地上,上帝看到了,就处死了他。(创38:10)

    上帝故意让埃及法老的心刚硬,不允许希伯来人离开埃及;然后他以此为借
口显示他的威力:给埃及带来十场灾难,包括杀死所有埃及人的长子,哀鸿遍野
。(出7:3,10:1)

    耶弗他向上帝许诺把在他回家时看到的第一人杀了祭献,虽然那人是他的爱
女,还是杀了感谢上帝的恩典。(士11:29)

    因为百姓放肆,上帝通过摩西命令大家杀自己的弟兄与同伴并邻居,一天之
内约有三千人被杀。上帝赐福给这些杀了自己的儿子和弟兄的人。(出32:2
7)

    上帝听见百姓发怨言,就怒气发作,发火烧他们。(民11:1)

    仅仅因为有一个以色列人带了一个米甸女人到弟兄那里去,上帝就在以色列
人中大发瘟疫,死掉了二万四千人。(民25:6)

    上帝的灵大大感动了参孙,使他杀了一千人。(士15:14)

    乌沙牛失前蹄,无意中扶了一下约柜,上帝因此发怒,让他死在柜旁。(撒
下6:6,代上13:9)

    因为大卫娶了赫人乌利亚的妻为妻,上帝就让他们所生的孩子得重病。大卫
为这孩子哀求上帝,结果上帝还是让他死掉了。(撒下12:15)

    上帝以色列人发怒,降瘟疫杀死七万人。(撒下24:15)

    约伯公正正直,敬畏神,上帝还对他不放心,就跟撒但打赌,放手让撒但去
杀死约伯的儿女、仆人和羊群,让约伯长满毒疮,唯一的要求仅仅是保存约伯的
生命以便考验约伯的忠诚!如此作为,与撒但何异?(伯1:1)

http://www.xys.org/fang/doc/religion/god.txt