薄熙来立案同日 中共突停审最大活摘器官案

薄熙来立案同日 中共突停审最大活摘器官案

【大纪元2012年10月27日讯】(大纪元记者古清儿报导)10月26日,前重庆市委书记、中共中央政治局委员薄熙来的全国人大代表资格被罢免后,同日 深夜官方又通报,薄因涉嫌犯罪,对其立案侦查并采取强制措施。而原定26日在北京开审的中国最大宗活摘器官案突然取消开庭。

外界认为,中共在一天时间内对薄熙来做出两大决定,说明中共高层在处理薄案的急迫性。而取消原定26日开庭审理器官买卖案,是 因为薄熙来涉及活摘法轮功学员器官贩卖,又在国际社会被广泛曝光,如果此时两案同时展开,外界很容易把薄案与活摘器官联系起来,这样对中共政权的打击会很 大,因为活摘器官案一旦大白于天下,必会导致中共政权倒台,目前中共处处为其掩盖。

薄熙来全国人大代表资格被罢免、立案侦查

今年4月10日,中共当局鉴于薄熙来涉嫌严重违纪,停止其担任的中央政治局委员、中央委员职务。

9月28日,薄熙来被当局开除党籍和公职,并将其移交司法机关处理。其中“涉嫌其他犯罪线索”引发关注,外界猜测,对薄熙来案的进一步调查将会出现更严重的指控,并将牵涉到其他的高层领导人。

10月26日,中共全国人大常委会发公告称,薄熙来被重庆市人大常委会罢免了十一届全国人大代表资格。

26日深夜11点42分,官方报导称 :“薄熙来因涉嫌犯罪,最高人民检察院经审查决定,依法对其立案侦查并采取强制措施,案件侦查工作正在依法进行中。”

据悉,中共于11月1日召开的十七届七中全会,除会对给予薄熙来开除党籍的处分予以追认,还将对薄熙来案进行最终定性。外界认为,薄熙来将面临严惩,甚至死刑。其后台周永康、江泽民也将难逃法网。

最大宗活摘器官案突然取消开庭

就在中共当局对薄熙来连续做出重要决定后,原定26日在北京开审的中国最大卖肾案突然取消开庭。

据《法制晚报》报导,被控涉嫌组织出卖人体器官罪的15名被告人原定在海淀法院受审。26日上午9时30分,15名被告人的家属及代理律师在法院门外排起了长队,等待着安检后进入法庭。

10时50分,原本定于10时开庭的法庭,所有被告人的律师被告知:“不开了,说有个被告人犯了病,需要治疗。”

该报导称,该案是最大的一起组织出卖人体器官罪案。9个月里,非法摘除51枚肾脏,出售给肾病患者牟利1034万元。被告人中不仅有器官贩子,还有正规医院的医生,甚至副院长。

为了获取最大利润,主犯郑伟包租一栋别墅,组建了摘肾基地,最多时一天竟摘取了6枚肾脏。

15名被告人中9男6女,最大的56岁,最小的才20岁,其中4人曾是正规医院的医生,被告人杨国忠原是江苏省徐州市铜山区第二人民医院副院长,樊海雁是徐州瑞博中西医结合医院护士长。22岁的王芳红和20岁的王亚兰刚毕业,就被郑伟通过网路招聘为摘肾基地的护士。

中国媒体证实官方与黑道仲介组庞大活体器官贩卖网络

近期,中国官方公布的最大宗活摘器官案中,承认器官仲介罪犯伪造“死刑犯判决书”、“死刑犯器官捐赠志愿书”、“亲属关系器官捐赠志愿书”来活摘器官等细节。

中国《财经》杂志9月10日在题为《非法买卖51颗肾脏背后:器官由三甲医院洗白》的文章中,详细披露了一个叫郑伟的肾脏器官仲介贩卖器官的黑幕。

文章透露,被中国公安起诉的案卷中称郑伟贩卖的活摘器官的相关“死刑犯器官捐赠文件”、“亲属之间活体器官捐赠档”都是伪造的。

这些伪造档一点都没能影响到北京这家正规医院将这些非法获取的活摘器官移植到器官受体者身上。接受郑伟提供非法肾脏的医院,《财经》杂志报导只说是坐落在北京西三环外的三甲军医院。记者在百度上查到,其中涉嫌作案的医生在解放军304医院和301医院工作。

器官仲介郑伟伪造“死刑犯判决书”和“亲属之间捐献志愿书”

从 中国官方公布的活摘器官案资料显示,不法获得的59颗活体器官中,移植医院所需“死刑犯判决书”、“死刑犯器官捐赠志愿书”、“亲属之间捐赠志愿书”都是 伪造档。换句话说,这些活体器官不来自死刑犯、亲属之间,那是谁提供了这些活体器官?这些事先已做好组织配型的活体器官提供者被关押在何处?

《财 经》杂志报导中显示,器官仲介犯郑伟先后买到了四具死刑犯尸体上的8颗肾脏,共支付给工作人员73万元,平均每颗肾脏9万余元。而他做活体的买卖,仅需支 付给那些供体不到3万元,加上食宿、摘取等费用,也比9万元低。而且法院也没有给他档,拿回死刑犯的肾脏后,郑伟同样需伪造“死刑判决书”和伪造“死刑犯 捐献志愿书”,以便医院安排手术。

于是,从那以后,郑伟更愿意直接从网络上寻找那些想靠卖肾挣钱的年轻人,然后编造假的“死刑犯判决书”、“器官捐赠志愿书”、“亲属活体器官捐赠志愿书”,不过,接受他提供肾脏的那家三甲军队医院从来没有朝他要这些法律要求的档。

官方报导称,今年8月份,大陆公安在打击非法器官买卖过程中,在北京、河北、安徽、山东、河南、陕西等18个省市,打掉非法出卖人体器官的28个“黑仲介”团伙,逮捕嫌犯137人,其中非法行医18人,解救127名活体器官提供者。

不过官方没有报导这些犯罪团伙将多少原本毫无亲属关系的人,假冒伪造成具有捐献资格的亲属,从而进行活体器官捐赠。

广 东首宗涉嫌组织出卖人体器官案8月31日在东莞开庭。该案的主刀医生周凯章,原是广州医学院第三附属医院肾移植专科主任,至2007年,已临床肾移植一千 多例。其被“法轮功受迫害真相联合调查团(CIPFG)”列入《关于第二批追查取证对象的公告——追查取证涉嫌迫害法轮功学员的中国大陆医院》的名单上。

该案令人蹊跷的地方是:中共媒体报导中称只查2011年10月后的问题,而之前所做的移植不追究。分析人士认为,中共不追究的那个部份正是活摘法轮功学员器官最严重时期。

薄熙来与谷开来涉及活摘器官罪无法再掩盖

正当外界越来越关注中共活摘法轮功学员器官罪行之际,中共卫生部近期出台试行人体器官获取与分配新规,声称今后移植器官需全国统一分配。此举说明中国大陆器官移植管理混乱,也侧面印证了中共高层知道某些利益集团活体摘取法轮功学员器官的惊天罪行。

9月份,21届联合国人权理事会在日内瓦召开,对中共活摘法轮功学员器官的指控成为关注焦点。而世纪大案“薄谷开来案”和“王立军案”,尚未揭开谜底的核心部份都涉及活摘器官和贩卖尸体罪行。

自从王立军闯入美领馆之后,“活摘器官”的内幕就不可避免地大幅曝光。此前《大纪元》曾经报导,王立军给美国政府的材料中,包括了大量对法轮功学员进行迫害的材料,其中还有中共活摘法轮功学员器官的内幕资料。

大纪元获悉,薄熙来案的核心真相一直被掩盖。为配合江泽民的迫害政策,薄熙来、谷开来涉及活摘器官、非法在国际贩卖尸体等罪恶,英国人海伍德(Neil Heywood)卷入薄谷在国际贩卖器官、尸体等事件被调查,薄熙来和谷开来害怕罪恶被曝光,从而海伍德被“灭口”。

http://www.epochtimes.com/gb/12/10/27/n3716214.htm-%E8%96%84%E7%86%99%E6%9D%A5%E7%AB%8B%E6%A1%88%E5%90%8C%E6%97%A5-%E4%B8%AD%E5%85%B1%E7%AA%81%E5%81%9C%E5%AE%A1%E6%9C%80%E5%A4%A7%E6%B4%BB%E6%91%98%E5%99%A8%E5%AE%98%E6%A1%88-.html?p=all

 

廣告
張貼在 未分類 | 發表留言

The Cultish Traits of the Chinese Communist Party

The Cultish Traits of the Chinese Communist Party PDF Print E-mail
Banned Books
The Communist Party is essentially an evil cult that harms mankind.

Although the Communist Party has never called itself a religion, it matches every single trait of a religion. See the table below.

At the beginning of its establishment, it regarded Marxism as the absolute truth in this world and denied the existence of anything beyond this world. It piously worshiped Marx as its god and exhorted people to engage in a life-long struggle for the goal of building a “communist heaven on earth.”

The Communist Party is significantly different from any righteous religion. All orthodox religions believe in God and benevolence, and their purpose is to instruct humanity about morality and to save souls. The Communist Party does not believe in God and opposes traditional morality.

What the Communist Party has done proves itself to be an evil cult. The Communist Party’s doctrines are based upon class struggle, violent revolution, and the dictatorship of the proletariat and have resulted in the so-called “communist revolution” full of blood and violence.

The red terror under communism has lasted for about a century, bringing disasters to dozens of countries and costing tens of millions of lives. The communist belief, one that created a hell on earth, is nothing but the vilest cult in the world.

The Communist Party’s cultish traits can be summarized under six headings:

1. Concoction of Doctrines and Elimination of Dissidents

The Communist Party holds up Marxism as its religious doctrine and shows it off as the unbreakable truth. The doctrines of the Communist Party lack benevolence and tolerance. Instead, they are full of arrogance.

Marxism was a product of the initial period of capitalism when productivity was low and science was underdeveloped. It didn’t have a correct understanding at all of the relationships between humanity and society or humanity and nature.

Unfortunately, this heretical ideology developed into the international communist movement and harmed the human world for over a century before the people discarded it, having found it completely wrong in practice.

Party leaders since Lenin have always amended the cult’s doctrines. From Lenin’s theory of violent revolution, to Mao Zedong’s theory of continuous revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat, to Jiang Zemin’s “Three Represents,” the Communist Party’s history is full of such heretical theory and fallacy.

Eliminating dissidents is the most effective means for the evil cult of communism to spread its doctrine. Because the doctrine and behavior of this evil cult are too ridiculous, the Communist Party has to force people to accept them, relying on violence to eliminate dissidents.

2. Promoting Worship of the Leader and Supremacist Views

From Marx to Jiang Zemin, the Communist Party leaders’ portraits are prominently displayed for worship. The absolute authority of the Party leaders forbids any challenge. Mao Zedong was set up as the “red sun” and “big liberator.” The Party spoke outrageously about his writing, saying “one sentence equals 10,000 ordinary sentences.”

As an ordinary Party member, Deng Xiaoping once dominated Chinese politics like an overlord. Jiang Zemin’s “Three Represents” theory is merely a little over 40 characters, long, including punctuation, but the CCP Fourth Plenary Session boosted it as “providing a creative answer to questions such as what socialism is, how to construct socialism, what kind of party we are building, and how to build the Party.”

3. Violent Brainwashing and Mind Control

The CCP’s organization is extremely tight: One needs two Party members’ references before admission; a new member must swear to be loyal to the Party forever once admitted; Party members must pay membership dues, attend organizational activities, and take part in group political study.

The Party organizations penetrate all levels of the government. There are basic CCP organizations in every single village, town, and neighborhood. The CCP controls not only its Party members and Party affairs, but also those who are not members because the entire regime must “adhere to the Party’s leadership.”.

Joining the CCP is like signing an irrevocable contract to sell one’s body and soul. With the Party’s rules being always above the laws of the nation, the Party can dismiss any Party member at will, while the individual Party member cannot quit the CCP without incurring severe punishment. Quitting the Party is considered disloyal and will bring about dire consequences.

4. Urging Violence, Carnage, and Sacrifice for the Party

Mao Zedong said, “A revolution is not a dinner party, or writing an essay, or painting a picture, or doing embroidery; it cannot be so refined, so leisurely and gentle, so temperate, kind, courteous, restrained, and magnanimous. A revolution is an insurrection, an act of violence by which one class overthrows another.”[4]

Deng Xiaoping recommended “killing 200,000 people in exchange for 20 years’ stability.”

Jiang Zemin ordered, “Destroy them [Falun Gong practitioners] physically, ruin their reputation, and bankrupt them financially.”

5. Denying Belief in God and Smothering Human Nature

The CCP promotes atheism and claims that religion is the opiate of the people. It used its power to crush all religions in China, and then it deified itself, giving absolute rule of the country to the CCP cult.

At the same time that the CCP sabotaged religion, it also destroyed traditional culture. It claimed that tradition, morality, and ethics were feudalistic, superstitious, and reactionary, eradicating them in the name of revolution.

During the Cultural Revolution, widespread ugly phenomena violated Chinese traditions, such as married couples accusing each other, students beating their teachers, fathers and sons turning against each other, Red Guards wantonly killing the innocent, and mobs beating, smashing, and looting. These were the natural consequences of the CCP’s smothering human nature.

After establishing its regime, the CCP forced minority nationalities to pledge allegiance to the communist leadership, compromising the rich and colorful ethnic culture they had established.

On June 4, 1989, the so-called “People’s Liberation Army” massacred many students in Beijing. This caused the Chinese to completely lose hope in China’s political future. From then on, everyone’s focus turned to making money.

From 1999 to this day, the CCP has been brutally persecuting Falun Gong, turning against Truthfulness, Compassion, and Tolerance (the fundamental principles of Falun Gong) and thereby causing an accelerated decline in moral standards.

Since the beginning of this new century, a new round of illegal land enclosure[6] and seizure of monetary and material resources by the corrupt CCP officials in collusion with profiteers has driven many people to become destitute and homeless.

The number of people appealing to the government in an attempt to have an injustice settled has increased sharply, and social conflict has intensified. Large-scale protests are frequent, which the police and armed forces have violently suppressed. The fascist nature of the “Republic” has become prominent, and society has lost its moral conscience.

In the past, a villain didn’t harm his next door neighbors, or, as the saying goes, the fox preys far from home. Nowadays, when people want to con someone, they would rather target their relatives and friends, and call it “killing acquaintances.”

In the past, Chinese nationals cherished chastity above all else, whereas people today ridicule the poor but not the prostitutes. The history of the destruction of human nature and morals in China is vividly displayed in a ballad below:

In the 50s people helped one another,
In the 60s people strove with one another,
In the 70s people swindled one another,
In the 80s people cared only for themselves,
In the 90s people took advantage of anyone they ran into.

6. Monopolization of the Economy

The sole purpose of establishing the CCP was to seize power by armed force and then to generate a system of state ownership in which the state holds monopolies in the planned economy. The CCP’s wild ambition far surpasses that of the ordinary evil cults that simply accumulate money.

In a country of socialist public ownership ruled by the Communist Party, Party organizations that hold great power (that is, the Party committees and branches at various levels) are imposed upon or possess the normal state infrastructure. The possessing Party organizations control state machinery and draw funds directly from the budgets of the governments at different levels. Like a vampire, the CCP has sucked a huge amount of wealth from the nation.

(Excepts from the first part of Chapter 8 of Nine Commentaries on the Communist party )

Link to Chapter 8 of the original Essay

http://www.chinauncensored.com/index.php/banned-books/553-the-cultish-traits-of-the-chinese-communist-party


張貼在 未分類 | 發表留言

Ai Wei Wei’s Interview With the Chinese Digital Thought Police

Ai Wei Wei’s Interview With the Chinese Digital Thought Police

By Brian Fung

 

inShare Oct 26 2012, 12:49 PM ET 1

What it is like being a member of the government’s “50-Cent Gang"?

RTR2CACZ-615.jpgWeb users log on at an Internet cafe in Shanxi province. (Reuters)

China’s Web censorship machine is in full swing again after The New York Times published a story Thursday on Premier Wen Jiabao’s massive family fortune that stretches into the billions of dollars. Within hours of the report, the Times’ English- and Chinese-language websites had become unreachable from inside the People’s Republic.

But even before China’s Great Firewall had lumbered into motion, anonymous digital cheerleaders for the government were probably already hard at work spinning Beijing’s response to the news. Members of the so-called “50-Cent Gang" are paid by the state to sway public opinion on Internet forums and chatrooms. These individuals portray themselves online as ordinary Chinese with a point of view, but in an environment where talk is cheap and nobody knows you’re a dog, much less a paid government agent, the 50-Cent Gang generally enjoys free rein.

Ai Wei Wei, the artist and critic, sat down earlier this month with one of these semi-official public relations officers in Beijing’s employ. Their conversation reveals a surprisingly structured approach to what others might liken to Western Internet trolling:

Can you describe your work in detail?
The process has three steps – receive task, search for topic, post comments to guide public opinion. Receiving a task mainly involves ensuring you open your email box every day. Usually after an event has happened, or even before the news has come out, we’ll receive an email telling us what the event is, then instructions on which direction to guide the netizens’ thoughts, to blur their focus, or to fan their enthusiasm for certain ideas. After we’ve found the relevant articles or news on a website, according to the overall direction given by our superiors we start to write articles, post or reply to comments. This requires a lot of skill. You can’t write in a very official manner, you must conceal your identity, write articles in many dif­ferent styles, sometimes even have a dialogue with yourself, argue, debate. In sum, you want to create illusions to attract the attention and comments of netizens.

The work often borders on psycho-social analysis:

In a forum, there are three roles for you to play: the leader, the follower, the onlooker or unsuspecting member of the public. The leader is the relatively authoritative speaker, who usually appears after a controversy and speaks with powerful evidence. The public usually finds such users very convincing. There are two opposing groups of followers. The role they play is to continuously debate, argue, or even swear on the forum. This will attract attention from observers. At the end of the argument, the leader appears, brings out some powerful evidence, makes public opinion align with him and the objective is achieved. The third type is the onlookers, the netizens. They are our true target “clients". We influence the third group mainly through role-playing between the other two kinds of identity. You could say we’re like directors, influencing the audience through our own writing, directing and acting. Sometimes I feel like I have a split personality.

What the 50-Cent Gang does is no easy task. But its members earn little more than $100 a month for their toil:

It’s calculated on a monthly basis, according to quantity and quality. It’s basically calculated at 50 yuan per 100 comments. When there’s an unexpected event, the compensation might be higher. If you work together to guide public opinion on a hot topic and several dozen people are posting, the compensation for those days counts for more. Basically, the compensation is very low. I work part-time. On average, the monthly pay is about 500-600 yuan. There are people who work full-time on this. It’s possible they could earn thousands of yuan a month.

On whether the commenter’s personal convictions clash with his employer’s:

Do you think the government has the right to guide public opinion?
Personally, I think absolutely not. But in China, the government absolutely must interfere and guide public opinion. The majority of Chinese netizens are incited too easily, don’t think for themselves and are deceived and incited too easily by false news.

Do you have to believe in the viewpoints you express? Are you concerned about politics and the future?
I don’t have to believe in them. Sometimes you know well that what you say is false or untrue. But you still have to say it, because it’s your job. I’m not too concerned about Chinese politics. There’s nothing to be concerned about in Chinese politics.

The full interview is worth a read.

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/10/ai-wei-weis-interview-with-the-chinese-digital-thought-police/264163/

張貼在 未分類 | 發表留言

China’s Paid Trolls: Meet the 50-Cent Party

China’s Paid Trolls: Meet the 50-Cent Party
The Chinese government hires people to distort or deflect conversations on the web. Ai Weiwei persuades an “online commentator” to tell all.

By Ai Weiwei Published 17 October 2012

New Statesman
(PHOTO: Marcus Bleasdale VII)

In February 2011, Ai Weiwei tweeted that he would like to conduct an interview with an “online commentator”. Commentators are hired by the Chinese government or the Communist Party of China to post comments favourable towards party policies and to shape public opinion on internet message boards and forums. The commentators are known as the 50-Cent Party, as they are said to be paid 50 cents for every post that steers a discussion away from anti-party content or that advances the Communist Party line.

Below is the transcript of Ai’s interview with an online commentator. As requested, an iPad was given as compensation for the interview. To protect the interviewee, relevant personal information has been concealed in this script.

Question: What’s your name, age, city of residence and online username?

Answer: I cannot make my name public. I’m 26. I have too many usernames. If I want to use one, I just register it. I won’t mention them here.

What do you call the work you do now?

It doesn’t matter what you call it: online commentator, public opinion guide, or even “the 50-Cent Party” that everyone’s heard of.

What is your level of education and work experience? How did you begin the work of guiding public opinion?

I graduated from university and studied media. I once worked for a TV channel, then in online media. I’ve always been in the news media industry, for four or five years now.Over a year ago, a friend asked me if I wanted to be an online commentator, to earn some extra money. I said I’d give it a try. Later, I discovered it was very easy.

When and from where will you receive directives for work?

Almost every morning at 9am I receive an email from my superiors – the internet publicity office of the local government – telling me about the news we’re to comment on for the day. Sometimes it specifies the website to comment on, but most of the time it’s not limited to certain websites: you just find relevant news and comment on it.

Can you describe your work in detail?

The process has three steps – receive task, search for topic, post comments to guide public opinion. Receiving a task mainly involves ensuring you open your email box every day. Usually after an event has happened, or even before the news has come out, we’ll receive an email telling us what the event is, then instructions on which direction to guide the netizens’ thoughts, to blur their focus, or to fan their enthusiasm for certain ideas. After we’ve found the relevant articles or news on a website, according to the overall direction given by our superiors we start to write articles, post or reply to comments. This requires a lot of skill. You can’t write in a very official manner, you must conceal your identity, write articles in many dif­ferent styles, sometimes even have a dialogue with yourself, argue, debate. In sum, you want to create illusions to attract the attention and comments of netizens.

In a forum, there are three roles for you to play: the leader, the follower, the onlooker or unsuspecting member of the public. The leader is the relatively authoritative speaker, who usually appears after a controversy and speaks with powerful evidence. The public usually finds such users very convincing. There are two opposing groups of followers. The role they play is to continuously debate, argue, or even swear on the forum. This will attract attention from observers. At the end of the argument, the leader appears, brings out some powerful evidence, makes public opinion align with him and the objective is achieved. The third type is the onlookers, the netizens. They are our true target “clients”. We influence the third group mainly through role-playing between the other two kinds of identity. You could say we’re like directors, influencing the audience through our own writing, directing and acting. Sometimes I feel like I have a split personality.

Regarding the three roles that you play, is that a common tactic? Or are there other ways?

There are too many ways. It’s kind of psychological. Netizens nowadays are more thoughtful than before. We have many ways. You can make a bad thing sound even worse, make an elaborate account, and make people think it’s nonsense when they see it. In fact, it’s like two negatives make a positive. When it’s reached a certain degree of mediocrity, they’ll think it might not be all that bad.

What is the guiding principle of your work?

The principle is to understand the guiding thought of superiors, the direction of public opinion desired, then to start your own work.

Can you reveal the content of a “task” email?

For example, “Don’t spread rumours, don’t believe in rumours”, or “Influence public understanding of X event”, “Promote the correct direction of public opinion on XXXX”, “Explain and clarify XX event; avoid the appearance of untrue or illegal remarks”, “For the detrimental social effect created by the recent XX event, focus on guiding the thoughts of netizens in the correct direction of XXXX”.

What are the categories of information that you usually receive?

They are mainly local events. They cover over 60 to 70 per cent of local instructions – for example, people who are filing complaints or petitioning.

For countrywide events, such as the Jasmine Revolution [the pro-democracy protests that took place across the country in 2011], do you get involved?

For popular online events like the Jasmine Revolution, we have never received a related task. I also thought it was quite strange. Perhaps we aren’t senior enough.

Can you tell us the content of the commentary you usually write?

The netizens are used to seeing unskilled comments that simply say the government is great or so and so is a traitor. They know what is behind it at a glance. The principle I observe is: don’t directly praise the government or criticise negative news. Moreover, the tone of speech, identity and stance of speech must look as if it’s an unsuspecting member of public; only then can it resonate with netizens. To sum up, you want to guide netizens obliquely and let them change their focus without realising it.

Can you go off the topic?

Of course you can go off the topic. When transferring the attention of netizens and

blurring the public focus, going off the topic is very effective. For example, during the census, everyone will be talking about its truthfulness or necessity; then I’ll post jokes that appeared in the census. Or, in other instances, I would publish adverts to take up space on political news reports.

Can you tell us a specific, typical process of “guiding public opinion”?

For example, each time the oil price is about to go up, we’ll receive a notification to “stabilise the emotions of netizens and divert public attention”. The next day, when news of the rise comes out, netizens will definitely be condemning the state, CNPC and Sinopec. At this point, I register an ID and post a comment: “Rise, rise however you want, I don’t care. Best if it rises to 50 yuan per litre: it serves you right if you’re too poor to drive. Only those with money should be allowed to drive on the roads . . .”

This sounds like I’m inviting attacks but the aim is to anger netizens and divert the anger and attention on oil prices to me. I would then change my identity several times and start to condemn myself. This will attract more attention. After many people have seen it, they start to attack me directly. Slowly, the content of the whole page has also changed from oil price to what I’ve said. It is very effective.

What’s your area of work? Which websites do you comment on? Which netizens do you target?

There’s no limit on which websites I visit. I mainly deal with local websites, or work on Tencent. There are too many commentators on Sohu, Sina, etc. As far as I know, these websites have dedicated internal departments for commenting.

Can you tell which online comments are by online commentators?

Because I do this, I can tell at a glance that about 10 to 20 per cent out of the tens of thousands of comments posted on a forum are made by online commentators.

Will you debate with other people online? What sorts of conflicts do you have? How do you control and disperse emotion?

Most of the time we’re debating with ourselves. I usually never debate with netizens and I’ll never say I’ve been angered by a netizen or an event. You could say that usually when I’m working, I stay rational.

When the government says, “Don’t believe in rumours, don’t spread rumours,” it achieves the opposite effect. For example, when Sars and the melamine in milk case broke out, people tended to choose not to trust the government when faced with the choices of “Don’t trust rumours” and “Don’t trust the government”.

I think this country and government have got into a rather embarrassing situation. No matter what happens – for example, if a person commits a crime, or there’s a traffic accident – as long as it’s a bad event and it’s publicised online, there will be people who condemn the government. I think this is very strange.

This is inevitable, because the government encompasses all. When all honour is attributed to you, all mistakes are also attributed to you. Apart from targeted events, are individuals targeted? Would there be this kind of directive?

There should be. I think for the Dalai Lama, there must be guidance throughout the country. All people in China hate the Dalai Lama and Falun Gong somewhat. According to my understanding, the government has truly gone a bit over the top. Before I got involved in this circle, I didn’t know anything. So I believe that wherever public opinion has been controlled relatively well, there will always have been commentators involved.

How do your superiors inspect and assess your work?

The superiors will arrange dedicated auditors who do random checks according to the links we provide. Auditors usually don’t assess, because they always make work requirements very clear. We just have to do as they say and there won’t be any mistakes.

How is your compensation decided?

It’s calculated on a monthly basis, according to quantity and quality. It’s basically calculated at 50 yuan per 100 comments. When there’s an unexpected event, the compensation might be higher. If you work together to guide public opinion on a hot topic and several dozen people are posting, the compensation for those days counts for more. Basically, the compensation is very low. I work part-time. On average, the monthly pay is about 500-600 yuan. There are people who work full-time on this. It’s possible they could earn thousands of yuan a month.

Do you like your work?

I wouldn’t say I like it or hate it. It’s just a bit more to do each day. A bit more pocket money each month, that’s all.

What’s the biggest difficulty in the work?

Perhaps it’s that you have to guess the psychology of netizens. You have to learn a lot of writing skills. You have to know how to imitate another person’s writing style. You need to understand how to gain the trust of the public and influence their thoughts.

Why can’t you reveal your identity? Why do you think it’s sensitive?

Do you want me to lose my job? Whatever form or name we use to post on any forums or blogs is absolutely confidential. We can’t reveal our identity, and I definitely wouldn’t reveal that I’m a professional online commentator.

If we do, what would be the purpose of our existence? Exposure would affect not just me, it would create an even greater negative effect on our “superiors”.

What do you mean by “superiors”?

Our superior leaders – above that should be the propaganda department.

Is your identity known to your family? Your friends?

No. I haven’t revealed it to my family or friends. If people knew I was doing this, it might have a negative effect on my reputation.

You say: “If I reveal inside information, without exaggeration this could lead to fatality.” Do you think that the consequence would be so serious?

With my identity, I’m involved in the media and also the internet. If I really reveal my identity or let something slip, it could have an incalculable effect on me.

If you say you want to quit, will there be resistance? Are there any strings attached?

Not at all. This industry is already very transparent. For me, it’s just a part-time job. It’s like any other job. It’s not as dark as you think.

How many hours do you go online each day and on which sites? Do you rest at the weekend?

I go online for six to eight hours nearly every day. I’m mainly active on our local BBS and some large mainstream internet media and microblogs. I don’t work over weekends, but I’ll sign in to my email account and see if there’s any important instruction.

In daily life, will you still be thinking about your online work?

Now and then. For example, when I see a piece of news, I’ll think about which direction the superiors will request it to be guided in and how I would go about it. It’s a bit of an occupational hazard.

Do you watch CCTV News and read the People’s Daily?

I usually follow all the news, particularly the local news. But I generally don’t watch CCTV News, because it’s too much about harmony.

Do you go on Twitter? Who do you follow?

Yes. I follow a few interesting people, including Ai Weiwei. But I don’t speak on Twitter, just read and learn.

How big a role do you think this industry plays in guiding public opinion in China?

Truthfully speaking, I think the role is quite big. The majority of netizens in China are actually very stupid. Sometimes, if you don’t guide them, they really will believe in rumours.

Because their information is limited to begin with. So, with limited information, it’s very difficult for them to express a political view.

I think they can be incited very easily. I can control them very easily. Depending on how I want them to be, I use a little bit of thought and that’s enough. It’s very easy. So I think the effect should be quite significant.

Do you think the government has the right to guide public opinion?

Personally, I think absolutely not. But in China, the government absolutely must interfere and guide public opinion. The majority of Chinese netizens are incited too easily, don’t think for themselves and are deceived and incited too easily by false news.

Do you have to believe in the viewpoints you express? Are you concerned about politics and the future?

I don’t have to believe in them. Sometimes you know well that what you say is false or untrue. But you still have to say it, because it’s your job. I’m not too concerned about Chinese politics. There’s nothing to be concerned about in Chinese politics.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/politics/2012/10/china%E2%80%99s-paid-trolls-meet-50-cent-party

 

張貼在 未分類 | 發表留言

Explosive New Video Details Organ Transplant Abuses in China

Explosive New Video Details Organ Transplant Abuses in China

Doctors, independent experts call for end to crimes against humanity

24 Oct 2012

New video details mass killings to supply multi-million dollar organ transplant industry.New video details mass killings to supply multi-million dollar organ transplant industry.

NEW YORK—A new online video details how, for the past ten years, Chinese military hospitals have operated a multi-million dollar human trafficking business that murders Chinese citizens to sell their organs (video). Experts cited in the video estimate that tens of thousands of prisoners of conscience, mostly Falun Gong practitioners, have been killed so that their organs could be sold for profit.

Renowned Canadian human rights lawyer David Matas dubbed such abuses “a new form of evil on this planet." Dr. Gabriel Danovitch, a leading transplant surgeon from the University of California in Los Angeles, calls such practices “abhorrent" and a “crime against humanity" that must stop.

The video, produced by New York-based New Tang Dynasty Television (ntdtv.org), comes at a particularly salient time. Almost immediately after its release, Forbes contributor Eamonn Fingleton cited the video as one of two on China that the U.S. presidential candidates must watch (report).

The Bo Xilai Connection

As the Communist Party’s changing of the guard and the trial for former Chongqing Party-chief Bo Xilai approach, the organ harvesting issue is particularly relevant given Bo and his deputy Wang Lijun’s apparent involvement in organ transplant abuses (see factsheet).

“Despite the mounting evidence of these crimes, mainstream media have been largely silent on this issue, but as this video shows, credible voices from the medical and policymaking communities are raising the alarm that horrific things are happening in China that can no longer be ignored," says Levi Browde, Executive Director of the Falun Dafa Information Center.

“These abuses are not just Chinese people’s problem. They tear at the very fabric of our humanity," says Browde. “Worse yet, in a transnational industry like organ transplants, people around the world—be they patients or doctors or pharmaceutical companies—are, unwittingly or not, complicit. We can’t just turn a blind eye."

* To view the video, see here.
* To sign a petition urging an end to organ harvesting from prisoners in China and calling for further independent investigations, see here.
* For a Falun Dafa Information Center Fact Sheet on organ harvesting, including the connection to Bo Xilai and Wang Lijun, see here.

http://faluninfo.net/article/1260/

 

張貼在 未分類 | 發表留言

Ahead of Tonight’s China Debate: Two Must-See Videos for the Candidates

Ahead of Tonight’s China Debate: Two Must-See Videos for the Candidates

Supporters of the Falungong spiritual movement...Supporters of the Falungong spiritual movement protest the opening by  China’s Vice President Xi Jinpingof Australia’s first Chinese Medicine Confucius Institute in Melbourne in  2010. Falungong is banned in China and it alleges that under former Chinese president Jiang Zemin a program was launched to “harvest" organs from its supporters. Image credit: AFP via @daylife)

Chinese leaders and their surrogates in the United States have been working hard this political season to calm American concerns about the rise of China. But predictions of China’s impending “implosion” are just that —  predictions. And many of them come from people who consciously want to deflect the attention of the American electorate from the real issue: as the United States becomes increasingly dependent on Chinese finance, it is rapidly losing its economic sovereignty. Worse, it  is falling under the shadow of  a nation — China — whose values  are about as remote as those of any major modern nation.  As it happens,  two YouTube videos have just been released that underline the extent of America’s   failure to understand the real China. We can only hope Barack Obama and Mitt  Romney have time to take a look ahead of their encounter tonight, in which they are expected to spend much time discussing China.

The first clip  is entitled, “Killed For Organs: China’s Secret State Transplant Business,” and it gives a horrific account of the Chinese state’s forced “harvesting” of human kidneys, livers, and other vital organs. In most cases, the “donors” are prisoners and many of them — perhaps a majority — are  prisoners of conscience. Their organs are sold to a booming domestic and global organ  transplant industry, with hearts, for instance, fetching well over $100,000 each. There have been allegations that supporters of the Falungong spiritual movement have been particularly targeted. In many cases organs fitting a recipient’s physiology can be made available within a week and the removal of the “donor’s” organs constitutes his or her execution. The clip includes a particularly graphic comment from the Canadian political campaigner  David Kilgour: “It makes you think of some grotesque restaurant where you pick your lobster — except that these are human beings we are talking about.” If this clip does not focus American attention on the ethical  implications of China’s rise, nothing will.

The second clip is a commentary by the prominent management writer Richard D’Aveni describing the extent of China’s challenge to the American economy. His contribution is, I believe, of historic significance in that he is the first top American scholar to  speak so clearly about the crisis now facing American capitalism. (D’Aveni’s comments are a complete break from a pattern of self-censorship which has long restrained the East Asian studies field in American universities. The problem has been scholars’ increasing dependence on funding from politically motivated donors — not least many  American corporations that profit from shipping jobs to  China). D’Aveni comes to the subject as an established and highly respected expert on management and his authority is bolstered by the fact that he enjoys tenure at Tuck,  one of America’s top management schools.

—————————————————

http://www.forbes.com/sites/eamonnfingleton/2012/10/22/ahead-of-tonights-china-debate-two-must-see-videos-for-the-candidates/

 

張貼在 未分類 | 發表留言

Man sent to labor camp for subversive comments and T-shirt files lawsuit

Man sent to labor camp for subversive comments and T-shirt files lawsuit

October 15, 2012Jing GaoNo Comments, , , , , , , , , , ,

A college graduate detained and sent to a labor camp for forwarding ‘subversive’ content on a microblogging site sued the labor camp in Chongqing Wednesday. On the web, he has garnered immense support for his fight for freedom of speech. His lawyer, also a human rights activist, defended him fervently in court and publicly indicted China’s notorious forced labor camp system that is often used to jail dissidents without a public trial.

Ren Jianyu

Ren Jianyu, 25, had been serving as a village officer of Pengshui county under Chongqing for two years since graduating from college in 2009. Last September, when he was waiting for his temporary ad hoc job to be turned official, the authorities in Chongqing determined that he had copied, forwarded and commented on “over 100 negative pieces of information” and therefore needed to be reeducated through labor for two years.

His father brought the case to Chongqing No.3 People’s Intermediate Court and asked that the decision to re-educate him through labor be rescinded. The case was heard in court Wednesday.

The case has been the latest in a series of incidents where local authorities took flak for incarcerating dissidents without the law even entering the equation. In August, Tang Hui, whose 11-year-old daughter was raped and forced into prostitution by seven men, petitioned the authorities in her hometown in Hunan province repeatedly to hand out death penalty, only to be sentenced to 18 months in a labor camp, which outraged Chinese netizens and prompted them into online activism.

Pu Zhuqiang, the attorney for Ren Jianyu, revealed on Sina Weibo that the Chongqing police applied for an arrest warrant despite that there was an absence of evidence against him that pointed to his subversive intent. After the prosecution disapproved the arrest warrant application on the grounds of lack of evidence, the Chongqing Public Security Bureau made the decision to sentence him to two years in labor camp. To incriminate Ren, the police submitted as evidence to court a T-shirt he bought over the Internet that reads “Giver Me Liberty or Give Me Death”.

The “Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death T-shirt” the Chongqing police seized from Ren’s home as evidence against him.

A majority of the 100 plus “negative” messages Ren Jianyu was accused of are forwarded web posts written by others, including one by law professor He Weifang, one by Chinese-Australian political blogger Yang Hengjun, and one by legal expert Xiao Han. Ironically, none of the original authors of the posts that Ren forwarded has been punished for what they have written. Some of them are evening teaching government officials at party schools.

A female friend of Ren said, “Ren Jianyu is a straight arrow. He does not pander.”

Ren’s attorney, Pu Zhiqiang (left) and Ren’s father in front of the courthouse on October 10.

Ren Jianyu’s father, Ren Shiliu, is a brick mason. He received only two months of formal education in his life. When Ren  Jr. was first arrested, he comforted his father by saying, “Don’t worry. It will take at most 20 years for charges against me to be cleared.”

As the pressure from the public mounted, the local authorities approached Ren’s family and wanted to settle the case in private, only to be turned down by Ren’s father, who insisted that Ren be exonerated in public, “How he got in will be how he gets out!”

Many comments Ren left on the web are critical of Bo Xilai, the former party boss of Chongqing, who had been a zealous advocate for revolutionary singing and dancing and Mao cult until he fell from disgrace amid a highly publicized scandal earlier this year. A college graduate in the city, Ren got a civil service position in a rural village administered by Chongqing as part of the scheme promoted by  Chinese civil service administration that encourage college grads to bring their skill sets and vision to rural China.

“Chongqing has held high the banner of the second Cultural Revolution in China. Singing red songs, Great Leap Forward, Flamboyance, personality cult, contempt for the law. Everything looks so familiar. What can I save you, the people that are suffering from difficulties and hardships?”

“Our government now has this problem: it doesn’t manage what it should have managed, and when it does manage, it manages foolishly,” he wrote in another post.

In court, Pu Zhiqiang, accused Bo Xilai and his police chief Wang Lijun, who unleashed extrajudicial crackdown on organized crimes as well as dissent, of “Fascist reign of terror.” He said Ren got punished solely for his speech. “Ren was dissatisfied with the current system. Deng Xiaoping was also dissatisfied, hence the reform.”

In his closing argument, he said, “As for a bad political system, we won’t stomach it long,” which has been retweeted on Sina Weibo, one of China’s most vibrant social media, over 18,000 times.

The state-run media have also voiced their support for Ren on Sina Weibo. Beijing News, a daily newspaper based in the nation’s capital, wrote, “Who, among the 500 million net users in China, has never forwarded a web post that strikes the chord?…If you really want to frame someone, you can always find a charge.”

Hu Xijin, the editor-in-chief of Global Times, a Communist tabloid well-known for its nationalist editorials and pro-government slant, wrote, “I believe he (Ren) can win (the lawsuit). Because the era of getting punished for pure speech that does not bring personal harm or social impact – no matter how ‘anti-party’ or ‘anti-socialism’ they are – should be over. Truly hope redress of his case can be the last straw on the thousand-year-old political tradition of punishment someone for his speech.”

http://www.ministryoftofu.com/2012/10/man-sent-to-labor-camp-for-subversive-comments-and-t-shirt-files-lawsuit/

 

張貼在 未分類 | 發表留言