[转贴]对不起，我不得不伤害你的感情
文章提交者：画之选 加帖在 猫眼看人 【凯迪网络】 http://www.kdnet.net

                       杨恒均：   对不起，我不能不伤害你的感情
下面是我今天收到的45封网友来信中的一封，只删除有可能暴露网友身份和单位的小部分内容，全文转载如下：

老杨，我知道你对目前四川的汶川地震灾难与我一样有着沉重的心情，看到那些鲜活生命的死去电视画面，实在不忍心去看，眼泪总是在眼中打转，心揪着痛。为什么如此惨烈的灾难又一次降临在中国？难道地震真的不能预测？我（删除几个字）女儿今天放学回家问我：22年前发生的唐山地震不能预测，22年过去了中国的地震预测技术还停留在1976年的水平上？我无言以对。
也许，在心中面对此次灾难我们有许多责问，我们有许多愤懑。但是现在我们只能沉默，寄希望于我们的政府和军队积极援救生命，只能默默关注灾情，为灾区同胞的平安祈祷。我已经报名参加献血，（删除一行）我想这是我当下能为灾区所做的点滴。
现在是敏感期，大家心里都不好受，我想老杨可以沉默一会，不要以你犀利的笔去戳痛那些黑暗，否则会有一部分网友觉得你太不厚道和仁慈，尤其，疲惫的温总理正战斗在灾区第一线，当他的泪水涌出时，深深地打动了多少中国人的心。
老杨，我知道你是个很有勇气的男人，敢做敢为，为自己心目中的祖国充满战斗激情，但是，现在我真的关心你的不合时言论是否会伤很多网友的心，他们此时不能理解你，也不能体谅你的用意，他们会恶语扑向你，认为你如此离经叛道，这是我不忍心看到的。
不能走得太远，不能走得太急，有时，你要停下来，等一等你的网友。如果你想启蒙你的同胞，如果你想为你的理想奋斗，不要太张扬；换一个方式，换一种姿态，你会收到意想不到的结果。
我想此时沉默是金，沉默最好。
保重！
一个真的关心你的网友
（转载信件完）

这两天我只写了一两篇文章，还不完全是针对四川地震的，可是，看一下博客里的留言，大概有三分之一是在批评甚至辱骂的，加上每天的几十封上百封信，其中也不乏批评的。实话说，那些信和留言都没有这一封信给我触动大。这个网友虽然是新认识的，但我很喜欢他，而且也认为他理解我（他在短期内，熬夜读完了我两百万字的所有作品）。他的信言真意切，我就是再固执，也不能不停下来，想一想了。

是我走得太快？还是我完全走错方向了？如果一个人的文章总是伤害读者的心，他是不是真应该停下来反思一下？至少，我想，在反思之前，我要对所有被我伤害的网友说一声：对不起。

但说过对不起之后，我还是要反思的，我觉得好像这是一个写作者的责任，也是一个作家和知识分子责任，不知道我说得是否对。

实事求是地说，三十年来最大的地震——也应该算是我们改革开放以来碰上的最大的自然灾害——发生了，作为一名中国人，那一个不是痛苦万分？都恨不得自己有超能力拯救灾民。再实事求是地说，地震发生后，从总书记到总理，日夜奔波，特别是总理，亲临第一线，铁石心肠也会被感动的。

（注意，我不同意有些网友质疑地震预测的问题，这不是中国的问题，世界上最先进的国家如美国，也没有确切掌握地震预测。美国虽然比我们更早发布这次地震情况，但显然，他们也没有预测出来，否则他们没有理由不通报给中国）

地震发生了，全国人民万众一心，难道我会在这个时候有二心？这里我也不妨说一下自己的心路历程，与网友交流。

遇到灾难的时候，我们最需要的是什么？当然是团结。可是，这种团结也不是那种连意见都不能提的团结。例如说，如果地震是有人破坏的，如果还有人继续破坏，或者阻扰我们救助，那么我们要团结起来，把他打倒。可是现在没有这个问题，现在的问题是，如何更好的救助。截至现在为止，我们还有那么多兄弟姐妹埋在地下，还有灾民风餐露宿。

网友被温总理感动了，我也是，但没有要落泪的地步。但今天早上我却被另外一个人弄得差一点流了泪。她没有名字，脸上有污泥，大概是个中年女人，出现在CNN的镜头上，她的右腿断了（伤了），她就躺在街上的一块塑料布上，可是天正在下雨，她只有一个雨伞，于是她把雨伞一会挪到伤腿上，一会挪到脸上，她身边有些人在奔走，但没有一个人在照顾她。今天早上，我的眼中和心中没有总理，我的眼中全是这个没有名字的女人，我的心中还有很多我眼中看不到的至今压在瓦砾下的灾民。

这次灾后，中国政府全力以赴，可以说无论从反应速度还是出动的人力物力上，都是中国几千年历史上没有出现过的，值得鼓励和喝彩。可是，我们就停在这里吗？我们的政府已经做得最好了，不是吗？

很多网友看到我竟然在这个时候挑刺，批评政府，说我还在鸡蛋里挑骨头，对政府有仇，至少是不厚道，甚至指责我不是中国人。他们说应该和政府保持一致，至少你也被温总理感动了吧，你没有心、没有肺？

我很抱歉，我伤害了大家的感情。那么我是怎么想的，也应该说一下，这个时候如果我参加大家的祈祷，写让人激动人心的文章，甚至保持沉默，都是可以的。地震出现后，很多网民都激动万分，写出了很多好文章，有些非常煽情，例如，“今夜，我们都是灾区人”、“今天，我们都是灾民”等等。

可是大家不妨设想一下，如果你今天真是灾民的话，你会怎么想，又会怎么做？你绝对没有时间写这样的文章，而且，灾区的人今天没有几个人看你的文章。你的文章是给那些根本不是灾民的人看的。那么对于灾民，他们在想什么？我可以毫不犹疑地告诉你，他们肯定不会像你一样感动得流泪，因为他们绝大多数的人还在流血！对于等待救援的灾民，他们永远在想：如果你们的救援工作已经做到了历史上最好的，那么你们还能不能做得更好一点？

让我们假定我们真是灾区的人，我们和他们心连心，或者我们本身是灾民，甚至是那些正在瓦砾下等待救援的垂死的人，好不好？如果是的话，你会想什么？你会对救援怀抱感激吗？当然不会，因为世界上所有的救援，哪怕是历史上最好的，在灾民看来都应该“更好”，更何况，我们的历史上最好的救援，是不是当今世界上最好的救援？我们是否和世界上的救援存在一些差距？

在地震发生两个小时候后，我就从外电上看到地震的情况，以这样的破坏程度，以我们国家的救援水平特别是运送救援人员和物资到达灾民面前的能力来说（这后一部分是所有救援工作中最重要的），我们和美国等西方国家的救援水平还是有一定差别的。我当时就想，如果能够立即联系美国那些正在泰国而无法进入缅甸的救援人员和设备，请求他们紧急支援四川，是不是效果要好一点？（注意，美国总统第一时间表达了愿意听候调遣，提供必要的支援，也第一时间捐钱了）我当时写了这个意思。结果有网友上来就骂，我想，如果你们的姐妹兄弟正在灾区中心的瓦砾下慢慢流血，你们会骂我吗？我们难道只知道在文章中高呼“今夜，我们都是灾民”，而不愿意把自己设想在灾民的位置上思考一下？说话实话，灾难发生后，已开始的所谓捐钱，根本就是象征意义的，中国的钱不多吗？钱有什么用？现在的问题是把灾民从死亡的边缘抢救回来。这不是钱就能解决的问题。

今天上午刚刚从新闻中看到，中国政府已经表示不但接受外国的金钱和物资资助，也愿意接受来自世界各地的救援和设备进入灾区。中国救援人员表示，在进入灾区时遇到了巨大的困难。我要为政府的决定喝彩！虽然政府的决定是我在看到地震的当时就想到的，而且也遭到了网友的辱骂。我倒想知道，为什么我早考虑到的东西受到网友的攻击，等到政府两天后考虑到并且决定了，网友就沉默了？

世界上的救援队伍是不分国家和政治的，大家可能不知道，美国发生地震时，世界多个国家的救援人员都冲过去。如果我们有一支训练有素的救援队伍，也可以随时申请冲过去。（写到这里，我又要建议：这次地震过后，国家应该加大力度，组建一支世界级水平的救灾队伍。目前军队和武警被当成救灾的主力，事实上他们真正接受的救灾训练是远远比不上专业队伍的。）我已经从国际新闻上知道，美国在东南亚集中了非常强力的救援队伍，这个时候我们却发生了地震，如果“免费”用一下他们，对灾区人民是何等重要？虽然我们的救灾队伍也很不错，但是大家应该知道，这种度和范围的地震发生后，当今世界上任何一个国家（包括美国）都是没有办法只使用自己国家的救援人员。（一个国家不可能养活那么多精锐的救援人员）

而且，据我所知道，美国有些救援人员，一个人至少可以抵美国军队20个士兵以上，例如洛杉矶的那几个地震救援队（洛杉矶是地震高发地带），抵20个人意义在哪里？大家知道很多救援地方无法容纳那么多人，所以，这抵20个人的救援高手，实际上发生的作用比一队人马。

刚刚看到CNN电视台记者实况采访远在洛杉矶的那个救援队头头，采访者说，你们是世界上最好的地震救援团体，你们准备去中国吗? 那个美国救援队队长是这样说的，我们准备好了，我们是国际救援队的一部分，现在只要中国提出请求，我们立即出发！

我真想现在就拿起电话，说，哥们，飞机上吃午饭，现在就过来吧，和中国兄弟们一起开赴灾区，拯救中国灾民！！！专业的救援队伍，对那些还在瓦砾下面的生命，有多大的意义，我想，我们都知道吧。让美国人过来，这些救援都是免费的，而且还有更重要的好处，让我们的精锐救援部队和他们一起并肩战斗，也可以取长补短，利于今后我们提高自己救援水平，等到有一天，美国需要我们的时候，我们也把精锐救援部队派过去。

在国家面临灾难的时候，大家要同仇敌忾，但也要群策群力，绝对不能用一种声音说话，更不能完全把思考的任务交给政府和军队，他们冲在第一线，要流血流汗，但很多时候，我们在后方的思考反而更加清醒。自然灾害和911那种恐怖袭击还有不同的地方，不需要高度一致对敌。现在我们的敌人是灾害。大家也看到了我们成都部队司令员带领几百个士兵在地震 30个小时候后急行军90公里到达灾区中心。司令员带队，请问，谁不感动？如果这个时候，我在一个舒服的地方，在电脑前提出疑问，当然会被认为不地道，甚至有些变态。可是，我的朋友，那些在灾区中心瓦砾下等了30个小时的同胞能够问问题吗？如果我们不替他们问一下，你就算捐献了几个亿，把我们的血都捐出去，等到他们生命消失了，血流完了，还有什么意义？？

我们在感动的时候，一定不能忘记问，为什么30个小时才赶到？90公里急行军需要多少个小时？成都军区离灾区中心有多远？他们赶到后就马上救助了上百人，那么如果再提前20小时、10小时，1小时，甚至半小时，是不是可以救助更多的人？

当然我的质疑并不一定正确，司令员可以告诉我，不，我们尽力了，不可能了。我得到这样的答案，我会点头同意，我会伤心，但我不会满意，因为我会反问一句，如果是美国的救援队伍的话，他们需要多少个小时？答案同样是：也许比我们更慢，也许和我们一样，但也许比我们快，如果答案是后者，如果要是美国的救援部队的话，比我们快，那么我们就应该继续追问，我们的差距在哪里？我们要如何提高？多久能够提高？如果是因为他们的设备不好，我们就买设备，如果政府没有钱，我们就捐。

事情就这么简单，难道我们的部队，在听到我们的质问后，就突然停下来，说，啊，你这个时候不鼓励我，我不去了。有网友说，但是这个时候不是你批评和质疑的时候，要等到灾难过后。

大家不是不知道，中国有多少灾难，每一次过后，总是会被搞成歌功颂德的欢乐大舞台，灾难过后什么时候有人认真总结过？普通民众和知识分子什么时候有机会质疑过？雪灾过后，大家总是期待一个总结，结果全国一片表扬模范的声音，甚至连铁道部也给自己打了高分，请问，总结的经验教训在哪里？灾民的损失有人补偿吗？

这次倒塌的那么多房子，有人说了，为什么学校第一时间倒，而政府大楼却大多没有倒？（这个事实我并没有证实过）我想如果情况是这样，这涉及到国家的教育投入，涉及到一些腐败的楼房质量，那么这个时候拿出来说，对不对？是否会影响救援工作？其实，如果拿出来说会影响救援工作，就一定不能说。

我认为不会，教育问题不是今天才出现的，小学的楼房比政府大楼要差得多，也不是今天才有的。当然，我们可以等灾后再提醒，但三十年过去了，大家不是每天都在批评教育投入少？情况如何？相对我们经济增长来说，不是越来越差？磁悬浮列车多少钱？建一个好一点的学校多少钱？孩子们被压在大楼下面当然不都是因为学校质量不好，但我们国家的教学楼有规定，必须抗击多少级的地震，这些倒掉的楼达到标准没有？政府大楼的抗震标准比学校的高吗？大家可以去看一下。如果说我们很穷，那没有问题，可是，我们政府的大楼一个比一个好，这不是事实吗？

我说这些伤害了大家的感情，我很抱歉，但我绝对不认为这些会影响救灾？什么人听到指责学校质量不好，就连灾也不去救了？如果我不说，我觉得良心不安，我觉得对不起那些被压死和正等待救援的灾民。有人说，你没有干实际的事，人家官兵在前线救援，你应该闭嘴。前线的官兵以及总理们当然比我有发言权，中国五千多份报纸和所有的电视台，不是每天每时都在播送最新的指示和动态？我只不过在自己的博客发表一点我认为对救灾有用的建议（还被删除）？怎么就不得了啦？

可是看看开头那个网友的信，我心里还是很难过。对不起，我伤害了网友的感情；但同样我还想说一声对不起，因为我不能不伤害你的感情，因为如果我不伤害你的感情，我觉得对不起自己的良心，觉得对不起现在还在等待救援的所有灾民。正因为灾难发生后，很多民众一面倒地站在救灾一边，来一个政治正确，不停为政府的努力而感动，好像我们提一点建议就把几百万人民解放军的士气给打下去了，这些人往往忽视了灾民的切身感受。所以造成一些滑稽的现象，那就是当一个灾民抱怨的时候，有人会出来指责，你还想怎么样？没有看到政府做了这么多事？没有看到温总理那么大年纪了，还亲赴第一线？这样的事情出现在年初的雪灾时，雪灾过后，我们听到的一片歌颂之词，至于灾民，他们只不过又一次成了陪衬而已。

我很清楚，对于一个写作人，谁都不想在这个时候和主流人群发出相左的意见，成为众矢之的，而事实上也确实是这样，无论是西藏问题还是奥运火炬，或者爱国大游行，我很多知识分子也警告过我，而且他们中相当一部分人也保持了沉默。我当然知道在这个时候写一些批评的意见，对我没有一点好处。可是我确实没有办法保持沉默，因为在这个国家和民众遭遇灾难的时候，在还无法知道那些灾民死活的情况下，我挨点骂没有什么，我也不是一名作家，更不想当一名受欢迎的作家，因为此时此刻，我把自己当成一名灾区的灾民——就像很多文笔优美的知识分子们写的那样！

杨恒均 2008-5-14

http://www.tianya.cn/new/publicforum/Content.asp?idWriter=0&Key=0&strItem=no01&idArticle=380853&flag=1

 “我虽死去”，历史绝不会沉没
　　文章提交者：祭园守园人 加帖在 猫眼看人 【凯迪网络】 http://www.kdnet.net
　　
　　“我虽死去”，历史绝不会沉没
　　——读《王容芬：为历史作证》
　　
　　【祭园守园人】
　　
　　
　　 小人物与大历史
　　
　　 卞仲耘，第一个文革受难的教育工作者，一个小人物，却是一段“大历史”的符号：那个红八月的后面，就是史无前例绵绵的“要武”血潮。
　　 王友琴、胡杰、王荣芬；卞仲耘的丈夫王晶垚、九十高龄的林莽……打开邮箱：《为历史作证——评胡杰获奖纪录片<我虽死去>》，荣芬大姐又一次让我认清：托起这一段大历史的就是这样一些小人物，就是小人物的良知、悲悯、又孱弱又坚韧的双肩。
　　 原来王荣芬与宋彬彬冰火相对的那个八一八，王友琴正凝记着女附中宿舍楼白墙上的那“一大片血点子”，与“一个血手印”。
　　 原来那时的胡杰，还是个孩子。
　　 原来皇家女中的《光荣与梦想》对面，不屈不挠站着王友琴穿引的、胡杰《我虽死去》承载的悲怆与梦，王荣芬一以贯之的悲怆与梦——王晶垚誓此终生“生于梦想，死于梦想”之悲怆与梦！
　　 这不也就是代表民间对日索赔的王选沉甸甸的人类之梦吗？！——才会又如此悲怆：“我站在你们面前，既不代表中国人，也不代表日本人，我是代表一个“人”站在你们面前的。
　　 ——无怪乎美国历史学家谢尔顿这样评价王选：
　　 “只要二个，就能让日本沉没。”
　　
　　 “我虽死去”，历史绝不能、也绝不会沉没！
　　 因为绝不止一个两个小人物，作为“人”在托住着历史的真相与正义！
　　 因为王荣芬、王友琴、胡杰们，王晶垚、林莽们……是这样面对宋彬彬穿越世纪的八一八风采的——
　　 不仅是向邪恶讨还公道；
　　 不仅是还原与守护着历史的真相……
　　 谁能否认，无数小人物的这种合力，正是人类赖以生存的大环境最坚实、最深厚的支撑！
　　 人之为人的人类，如何继承和延续自己的历史？
　　 ——她（他）们在以行动做出着最有价值的注解！
　　
　　 《为历史作证——评胡杰获奖纪录片<我虽死去>》，荣芬大姐自谓“影评”，是为着呼应卞仲耘的丈夫王晶垚岁末的那封公开信的。其实，读来更象《我虽死去》浑然一体的画外余音，宛如《我虽死去》的真相凝练与悲情延续。所以后附的原文，也非大姐曾邮给我的那一篇了——希冀这篇首发内容又会有新的充实。
　　 从网传《我虽死去》之后，光临卞家两个不速之客，到皇家女中九月盛典——罗京主持，包括各级领导人和外国使节在内的近6000名人在人民大会堂出席……既然这些既是宋彬彬八一八风采穿越世纪的权势依傍，又内蕴着香港 “二零零八华语纪录片奖”长片组最高奖授予《我虽死去》的时代渴求，那么，我对影评本身之评，也就与大姐告以胡杰的相近了：它以新的情境、新的语言，延续着《我虽死去》的悲怆与梦想，它属于面对滚滚复辟浪潮的小人物挺身与呐喊——这就不仅仅是为历史作证了。
　　 良知在行进。
　　 ——“我虽死去”，历史绝不会沉没！
　　
　　 2008-3-10于北京
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　 为历史作证——评胡杰获奖纪录片《我虽死去》
　　
　　 王容芬
　　
　　 一具中年女尸，凌乱的灰发，浮肿的面庞，鼻梁上一道青痕，口角残留着溢出物，右肩和上臂布满扎伤血痕，双腿大面积淤伤，双腿和两足浮肿。死者名卞仲耘，生前系北京师范大学女子附属中学党总支书记兼副校长，1966年8月5日死于该校校园，时年50岁。
　　
　　 死者的丈夫王晶垚先生当晚9时左右回到家中，接到学校通知他卞仲耘受伤被送邮电医院的电话。王先生当即带着3个小孩子赶往医院，长女王学随后知道了也赶到医院，一家人看到的却是亲人遍体鳞伤的尸体。在医院里，王先生与女附中革委会红卫兵代表发生争执，拒绝解剖尸体，因为对方明显要将死因归于死者生前患高血压、心脏病。医院屈服于在场红卫兵的压力，在死亡证明上写了“死因不明”。在王先生一再坚持下，红卫兵负责人之一刘进在一张字条上写下了她和其他6个人的名字，为首的是宋彬彬。
　　 第二天，王晶垚先生买了一架照相机，从各个角度拍摄了尸体照片，全身的，半身的，头部的。尸体火化时，王先生拍下了焚尸炉烟囪里飘出的一绺青烟，那是亡妻的冤魂。文革结束后的30年里，王晶垚先生一直通过司法和政治途径为卞仲耘申诉，状告一个叫袁淑娥的教唆犯，投诉有门，但告不动刑犯。北京市西城区人民检察院（80西检审刑字第72号）“不予起诉决定书”以事件逾期为名，拒绝立案。王先生继续上告了9年，一直告到全国人民代表大会。最高人民检察院答复七届人大二次会议，以同样理由拒绝立案（1989年4月2日高检字第101号）。王先生在这份堂皇虚伪的红头文件背后写下对中国法治的评价：“法治其名，人治其实，官官相护，何患无词！”
　　
　　
　　 黑白分明的罪恶
　　
　　 2006年，独立制片人胡杰扛着沉重的摄像机，走进和王晶垚的家和案发地女附中校园。
　　 打开一只旧皮箱，里面有：一个二寸见方的小盒子，盒子里一把华发、一块手表，指针停在3点40分，金属表带扭裂了；一件皱巴巴的血衣，背后的墨迹依稀可辨 “打倒”俩字；一条同样皱巴巴的内裤，沾着失禁的粪便；一条满是泥土和血污的裤子，一双溅着血迹的袜子，一些曾经用来擦拭伤口的纱布块。再加一架老式相机，一封匿名信，这些和5位证人，共同为40年前那个集体谋杀案作证。胡杰拍完，剪辑成66分钟的纪录片《我虽死去》。
　　
　　 MAO的暴力
　　
　　 影片里，王家长女王学压抑着悲愤，平静地陈述1966年8月5日晚上在邮电医院所见母亲尸体上的致命的伤痕：“母亲头上右后方有一个血窟窿，右上臂也有一个血窟窿，血还在往外渗……回家后，父亲看到从医院拿回来的母亲内裤上的大便，痛不欲生，抱头趴在凉席上，席子被啃烂了一大块。”
　　 残酷的批斗是8月5 日下午两点开始的，当年女附中学生王友琴说，卞仲耘等5位学校负责人跪在大操场的台子上，她听见有人喊“到木工房去拿棍子！”
　　 林莽先生从图书室窗口看到的红卫兵们，已经是全副武装，个个手持木棍或木枪，木枪是民兵训练用的。她们一律草绿军装，戴红底黄字红卫兵袖箍，腰扎钉头皮带，脚上是翻毛牛皮军靴。5位学校校负责人被她们押着游斗，卞仲耘领头走在前面，一手拿铁簸箕，一手拿根木棍儿，脸上涂满墨汁，只看见两只眼珠子，张口喊时露出白牙。红卫兵强迫她喊：“我是反革命修正主义分子！我是走资派！我有罪！我该斗！我该死！砸烂我的狗头！”她喊一句，就敲一下簸箕，反反复复来回来去喊。声音小一点儿，红卫兵的木枪和短棍就打过来。她后面跟着的副校长和主任们也都是墨汁浇黑了脸，手里敲着破脸盆、铁簸箕大声号叫。他们的嗓子越喊越哑，红卫兵的长枪短棍越挥越勤。卞仲耘挨打最多，一个红卫兵一脚踢到她肚子上。卞仲耘捂肚子，红卫兵的牛皮靴就踢在她的手背上，痛得她尖声大叫。几翻折腾，卞仲耘倒在地上。红卫兵们拥上来，骂她装死，好几只牛皮靴往她身上乱踢。红卫兵们踢累了才住脚，又喊：“砸烂她的狗头，打翻在地，再踏上一只脚，叫她永世不得翻身！”一个大高个红卫兵便把穿着翻毛军靴的脚踩在卞仲耘身上，做出雕塑剧的姿势。打累了骂渴了的红卫兵坐在一旁吃冰棍，嘻嘻哈哈狂笑。卞仲耘他们则要搬砖挑土运沙子，你搬过来，他再搬回去，劳动改造。卞仲耘迈不开步，一踮一踮地蹭。
　　林莽再次见到卞仲耘，是在女生宿舍东边女厕所外面。红卫兵带着他去那里，让他给卞仲耘找打扫厕所的笤帚。林莽看见卞仲耘的衬衫上有血，后来才知道，红卫兵打人的棍子头上全钉着钉子。卞仲耘已经站不住了，一只手扶着过道的墙。王友琴至今记着那天宿舍楼白墙上的一大片血点子，还有一个血手印。
　　 林莽把笤帚递给卞仲耘，她还没接住笤帚，就出溜到地上，双目紧闭。一个红卫兵朝她吼叫：“你又裝死！起來！” 她起不來了。 另一个红卫兵去盥洗室端來一盆涼水，兜头向她泼去，沖得她全身都是水。林先生看不下去，去了他工作的图书室。
　　 林莽最后一次见到卞仲耘，是在女生宿舍正门，也是红卫兵带去的。刚进正门，就看见卞仲耘仰面躺在正门台阶上，眼珠向上翻，口吐白沫，浑身是水，抽搐不止。红卫兵命令他和校工老白把卞仲耘抬上一辆平板車。抬起来时，卞仲耘鞋里的水哗哗往下流。
　　 卞仲耘死在平板車上，身上盖满大字报，大字报上压着一把大竹扫帚。她是文革中第一个被红卫兵打死的教育工作者。
　　 王友琴叙述了学生对校长之死的冷漠：“第二天早上，学生都坐在教室里听广播。文化革命委员会副主任，是高三学生，也是红卫兵负责人之一，在广播喇叭里说：‘昨天晚上，卞仲耘死了。’教室里静了一下，有人说了句什么，话题很快转到别处。 死了一个人，她是牛鬼蛇神，她被打死了，根本不被当作一件事情，甚至不需要议论一下。”
　　 好在成年人明辨善恶，王晶垚的同事王来棣女士当时敢于同情他的遭遇，40年后敢面对镜头谴责红卫兵暴行，这在今天的中国还不多见，人们还有顾虑。尤其难能可贵的是一位教师给王晶垚先生写的封匿名信：
　　老王同志：
　　 老卞在女附中为党工作17年，她是什么样的人，我们心里清清楚楚。无产阶级文化大革命刚刚开始，老卞同志就被活活打死。据亲眼看见的人说，她被很多带钉子的粗木棒和板凳腿乱打，罚下跪，罚挑土，挑不动，就乱棒猛击头部、上身。她后来又被罚去扫厕所。刚蹬上第三曾台阶，她就一头倒在宿舍楼的台阶上，当时大小便失禁。我是一个普通的教师，我不愿意写下我的名字，也不愿暴露我的笔迹。
　　师大女附中一教师8月8日2时
　　 那样的深夜，提笔为卞仲耘之死作证，需要何等勇气！40年后，胡杰找到了这位正直的女教师。她已经75岁，给胡杰讲述了当年卞仲耘被打致死的前前后后。打死卞校长那天，这位老师还去看望了胡志涛副校长，胡校长被打得14处骨折。但是她仍不愿暴露姓名，也不愿出镜发言，她说：“时候还没到。”
　　 卞仲耘死于红8月，死于毛泽东释放出来的红卫兵暴力。７月30日，毛泽东撤了刘少奇派到各学校领导文革的工作组。７月３１日，女附中成立红卫兵。由宋彬彬、刘进等红卫兵头目组成的文化革命委员会筹备小组，成为无政府状态下的临时权力机构，“筹备小组”四个字很快被忘记了，权力与“革命委员会”挂钩，成了校园政府，代表国家行使起暴力来。王晶垚说，8月4日就开打了，用棍子打，那天卞仲耘回到家里，撩起上衣给他看背上的伤。他让妻子不要去学校了，出去躲一躲。卞仲耘却准备好了死，而且洗得干干净净去让她们打死。王晶垚说妻子不离开，因为她认为自己没问题，她要保持人格尊严和清白，绝然赴死。
　　 8月5日，副校长胡志涛一上午跑遍新市委等京畿衙门，要求他们出面制止红卫兵暴力，没有人理睬她。下午惨案就发生了，胡志涛本人也被打成终生残疾。
　　 卞仲耘被红卫兵打死的那一天，毛泽东在中南海主持政治局会议，会议休息时，他在报纸的一角写下了“炮打司令部——我的一张大字报”。又过了13天，毛泽东以中央军委主席身份第一次接见全国红卫兵。宋彬彬等40名师大女附中红卫兵代表蹬上天安门城楼，宋彬彬给戎装毛泽东戴上红卫兵袖章。毛泽东振臂高呼：“红卫兵万岁！”
　　 毛泽东肯定了红卫兵，肯定了宋彬彬。因为毛泽东的一句“要武嘛”，第二天宋彬彬以宋要武的面目问世，并参与决定给女附中改名 “红色要武中学”，随后“要武小学”、“要武中学”跟风而起，从此红色恐怖笼罩全国。王晶垚先生提到女三中校长沙坪和八中党总支书记华锦之死，这两位女士死得比卞仲耘还惨，沙坪被逼喝痰盂里的水，在8月19日晚上和20日上午遭到毒打死亡，华锦的尸体被挂在暖气上。40天里，仅北京的红卫兵就打死了1700多人。
　　
　　 刘少奇的暴力
　　
　　 即使工作组不撤，卞仲耘、胡志涛们也逃不脱厄运。王晶垚先生用那台照相机追拍了工作组治下的迫害。工作组１９６６年７月３日呈报上级的“四类学校師大女附中领导核心排队的初步意見”，第一句话就决定了她们作为阶级敌人的命运：“师大女附中是北京市重点学校之一。在文化大革命运动中，群众揭发了领导核心的大量问题，性质是严重的，初步排为四类学校。”理由是“学校领导权把握在钻进党内的资产阶级代表人物手中”，卞仲耘、胡志涛就是这样的人物，她们都被划为四类干部。四类是最坏的一类，是铁板钉钉的阶级敌人。
　　 意见书给卞仲耘定的罪状是︰“多年來一贯反对学习毛主席著作，诬蔑党的路线方针政策；頑固地推行修正主义教育路线，收罗和重用一批资产阶级知识分子和反动份子；极力向青年师生放毒，精心培养修正主义苗子；搞宗派活动，培植个人势力；贪生怕死，追求低级趣味，十分欣赏武则天、杨贵妃、慈禧太后等荒淫無恥的私生活，有時讲话非常低级庸俗。划为四类。”凭着这些罪状，卞仲耘足以被开除党籍、公职，进而押送监狱或发配北大荒了。
　　 王晶垚先生拍下了工作组所说的“群众揭发”大字报和漫画的一部分。6月23日，外校教师袁淑娥带着100多个女附中的学生来他们家里贴大字报，从大门外贴到屋里，每张都有房门大。王晶垚从楼梯上拍下贴在他家大门上的大字报：“漏网的大右派，与前市委有密切联系的大黑帮份子，反共急先锋，对革命师生实行资产阶级专政的大混蛋，大恶霸，你他妈的放老实点，否则饶不了你。”这一张是“正书”，其它几张大同小异，除了政治帽子，就是下流的辱骂和威胁。
　　 大门外左侧墙上是毛泽东语录和空空洞洞的“严正声明”，右侧是骂杀：“竖起你的猪耳朵听着，你再敢胡作非为，千刀万剐了你！师大女附中中四三”这张下面还有一幅名为“卞母猪的丑态”的漫画，画着一个猪身小丑，撅着屁股摇一面三角旗，上书“我是女混蛋卞”，“卞”字下面加一个带括号的“便”字。这些花季少女满嘴杀剐，辱骂人没有底线，她们的语言暴力与8月5日的行动暴力相映成黑。
　　 进到里面，每间屋的门上都糊了大字报。洗手间俨若私设的公堂，左边门框上“坦白从宽”，右边门框上“抗拒从严”，中间门上“老实交代”，下面是大字报：“警告卞毒蛇，不许你再骑在劳动人民的头上作威作福！告诉你，现在是无产阶级专政，劳动人民当家作主，只许你规规矩矩，不许你乱说乱动。你胆敢不低头认罪，我们就坚决专你的政！横扫一切牛鬼蛇神！撕大字报，就是抗拒革命。”
　　 卞仲耘卧室门上贴着：“狗恶霸，卞毒蛇，你他妈的听着，你再敢骑在劳动人民头上耀武扬威，我们就抽你的狗筋，挖你的狗心，扒你的狗皮，砍你的狗头！告诉你，现在是劳动人民的天下，你他妈的敢动劳动人民一根毫毛，我们就宰了你！你他妈的别妄想东山再起，我们要断你的孙，绝你的种，砸你个稀巴烂。”门的另一面是：“你他妈的放老实点，否则饶不了你！”
　　 王晶垚房间的门上贴着：“卞狐狸精、母夜叉（卞仲云）你休想回家逞凶!在学校，你这个堂堂的大校长，总支书，早就被同学斗得威风扫地，在斗争会上，在革命师生的讨伐声中，索索发抖，猪毛蓬乱，头顶破筐，猪脸发紫，两腿发瘫，手捧高帽，冷水淋头，口衔黄泥，如若落水猪。回到家里，穷撒泼，凶神恶煞，一付地主婆模样，任意欺压、虐待劳动人民，竖起你的猪耳朵听着，你再敢胡作非为，千刀万剐了你！师大女附中 中四.三” 中四三的女生使尽了糟践人的本事，却错字连篇，连校长的名字都写错了。
　　 她们连孩子们的房间也不放过：“警告卞母猪及她的猪崽子们，不许你们横行霸道为非作歹！”
　　 宪法保护的公民居住地，可是一个中学校长家里大天白日闯进100多人，肆无忌惮辱骂、威胁主人，这事发生在法制尚在的刘少奇治下，公、检、法都还没受到冲击。刘少奇留守京城主持执政党中央日常事务，未经法律程序，擅自派工作组插足学校，下令停课闹革命。国家主席不去保护人民的生命安全，反而挑头儿作乱，为毛泽东大乱天下决开大堤，洪水猛兽，不可收拾。
　　 6月22日，工作组主持召开了空前残酷的打人斗争大会。袁淑娥一家三口上台，工作组听任袁揪住卞仲耘的头发发泄私恨。这些大字报是对斗争大会的补充，用以巩固打斗战果。
　　 6月29日，卞仲耘给派工作组下来的党中央写了一封呼救信，反应自己在批斗会上遭受的暴力和侮辱，举报了恶毒煽动的袁淑娥：
　　……在群情激愤之下，我遭到了拷打和种种折磨。我是一个共产党员，自己没有做过的事，没有说过的話，没有过的思想和意图，在任何情况下，都坚决不能承认。因此，我就被拷打和折磨了整整四、五个小时：戴高帽子、低头（实际上是叫将上身弯到和下肢成九十度……）、罚跪、拳打、脚踢、手掐，用绳索反捆双手，用两支民兵训练用的步枪口捅脊背，用地上的污泥往嘴里塞、往脸上抹，往满脸满身吐唾沫……。
　　突然遭受这样的拷打，加之早上和中午都没有吃饭，下午滴水没有进口，脸上身上汗流如注，身体实在难以支持，一再瘫倒，甚至晕倒在地上。这时，就有人用一盆冷水往我头上浇，用手揪我的头发，把我从地上拖起来，还叫恢复原来的姿势。象这样，晕倒了，用冷水浇头，再揪着头发拖起来，共有三、四次。
　　 当我被折磨得最不像人样的时候，还有人给我拍了照片，大概还不只拍了一张。等到把我折磨够了，天快黑了，会快结束了，那个阴险恶毒的坏家伙袁淑娥又登台了。她感到用借刀杀人的办法把我折磨成这个样子还不够解恨，竟敢直接揪我的头发，我对这个可耻的家伙进行了反抗。她一方面假惺惺地叫被她蛊惑、利用的学生们不要再打我了，说光打不解决问题，一方面更加阴险恶毒地煽动大家对我要在政治思想方面继续进行揭发，以便证明我是现行反革命分子和反党反社会主义分子。这个斗争大会一直开到七点多钟才结束。
　　 刘少奇的工作组6月3日进驻校园。6月2日宋彬彬、刘进、马德秀3人贴出师大女附中第一张大字报，表白“誓死保卫党中央，誓死保卫毛主席”，攻击校领导，与6月1日晚北大的“全国第一张马列主义大字报”在全国广播只有不到十小时的时差。工作组一进校门，就旗帜鲜明支持这张有来头的大字报，宣布女附中停课闹革命。当时，宋彬彬的父亲宋任穷任东北局第一书记、沈阳军区第一政委，刘进的父亲是教育部副部长。给毛泽东献袖章的时候，宋父已经升为政治局候补委员，进入最高权力中心。无论是刘少奇的文革，还是毛泽东的文革，卞仲耘都逃不脱宋彬彬们的魔掌。皇家女校校长，不过是贵胄们的仆人，在一个“老子英雄儿好汉”的世袭社会里，好汉豪女们处死他们的校长、老师是天经地义。工作组7月3日上报的“四类学校師大女附中领导核心排队的初步意見”，既肯定了6月下旬的打人大会和闯入卞仲耘家贴大字报的暴力行动，也宣判了卞仲耘的政治死刑。
　　
　　 跟着***走向死亡
　　
　　 卞仲耘的死期还不自1966年6月始，工作组审查意见书捯历史捯到1944年参加工作，1941年入党，说她“出身于大地主家庭，曾夸耀自己是带着黄金首饰参加革命的。”按照中共文革流行的血统论，就是说，卞仲耘这样的人根本不该入党，不该进入革命队伍，死亡之路早在她加入共产党之时就开始了。
　　 卞仲耘和王晶垚都是三八式干部，他们都是激进的民主主义者，以革命为志业，当年选择新闻专业，就是因为这个系课程少，他们有更多时间投身革命。王晶垚展示了1944年底在成都燕京大学组织的宣传民主、反法西斯的大规模展览照片和与李慎之等参加反抗四川省政府的双十运动友人的合影。王先生说，那时就是往枪口上冲，好多人牺牲了。
　　影片里响起卞仲耘生前最喜欢的歌曲《太行山上》，王晶垚和卞仲耘曾在太行山上的陕北电台工作。王晶垚拿出一块小巧的坤表，这是卞仲耘从继母手里继承下来的，当时电台没有一台准时的钟表，借了这块表定时。
　　 1966年8月4日、5日、6日三天里，王晶垚失去了青年时代以来三位最亲近的人，祁式潜、卞仲耘和刘克林。
　　 祁式潜出身官僚世家，曾祖祁隽藻是道光和咸丰年间宰相，历任国子监祭酒、户部右侍郎、兵部尚书、户部尚书、体仁阁大学士、礼部尚书，兼任道光皇帝的上书房总师傅、咸丰皇帝的太子太保、同治皇帝的弘德殿授读，有“三代帝王师”之称；祖父祁世长历任翰林院编修、工部尚书，兼管顺天府府尹事务；父亲祁友蒙历任南河同知、湖北知府。祁式潜比王晶垚夫妇参加革命还要早，是1935年12&#8226;9学生运动的组织者之一，但他命运坎坷，打下天下却失去党籍，直到1956年才被批准重新入党，级别、待遇都从那时算起。祁式潜不仅是王晶垚的战友，也是同事，中国社会科学院近代史所研究员，文革一开始就被打成反革命分子，8月4日晚服“敌敌畏”自杀，卒年51岁。3年以后，祁式潜夫人居瀛棣也选择了这一条路，卒年53岁。居瀛棣是国民党元老政务院院长居正之女，1936年放弃金陵女子文理学院学业参加革命，抗战胜利后在重庆和上海参加中共隐蔽战线，协助完成了许多重要地下工作，死前为故宫博物院馆员。
　　 刘克林是王晶垚夫妇大学时的同学，出身官宦，其父为民国政府海军部少将司长，主持海军编译局。刘氏14岁即参加共产党，也有一段丢了党籍的坎坷，1957年才被批准重新入党。刘在大公报供职多年，有“一代报才”之誉，文革初期任职中共中央宣传部国际处，被副部长姚溱株连。7月23日姚溱自缢，8月6日下午，刘从XX部办公楼5楼砰然坠下，卒年42岁。刘死前无异兆，没有遗言遗嘱。
　　 他们都出身于有社会地位的殷实人家，无衣食之虑，无思想之固，黄发垂髫，一腔热血，投身革命，万劫不复。他们躲过共产党的一场场死亡运动，最终在文革死亡游戏中丧生，被逼死、害死、乱棒打死，骨灰不存，魂灵无系。卞仲耘作为文革中第一个被打死的教师，她的名字无法掩没；祁式潜和刘克林虽然为共产党轰轰烈烈过，却少有人知道这两个名字，如果没有王友琴的文革死难者名单，我也找不到他们；居瀛棣的名字更鲜为人知，我是在台湾李敖先生一篇“居正女婿辨”里偶然发现的。文革死了多少人，国家没有统计，死了多少共产党员，党内也没有统计。1980年意大利记者法拉奇曾向邓小平先生提出这个问题，邓答道：“永远也统计不了。因为死的原因各种各样，中国又是那样广阔。总之，人死了很多。”
　　 亲人和友人一个个死去，在死亡面前，王晶垚觉醒了：“我这四十年来，一直生活在记忆中，我身上背着十字架，这样一个典型的惨案，一个人的生命没有了，一个家庭被摧毁了，不仅仅是一个人和一个家庭的遭遇。耶稣扛着自己的十字架，我是在帮着扛十字架，我现在还扛着。这样一个历史事件，我有责任，只有我有责任，包括我的孩子在内，他们所理解的，所感受到的，所想到的都不能和我一样，因为我是亲身经历者，如果我不把这些真相揭露出来的话，那就是没有尽到责任。用我一句话，我就白活了。这是我不可推卸的责任。”
　　他总结一生，概括为8个字： “生于梦想，死于梦想。” 他要把这8个字写在自己的骨灰盒上。
　　 影片中另一位证人林莽先生，接受参访时已经90高龄。林先生14岁参加革命，建国后被打成胡风反党集团成员，从大学降到女附中，1957年又被打成右派，从语文教师降为图书资料员，文革中被罚扫厕所。他也和王晶垚先生的朋友一样，曾经想用死来证实自己的清白，而且是和无靠的母亲同归于尽。母子俩手拉手坐在木床上，握住电线，接好拉线电源。灯泡炸了，人却没死成。事后林莽听学校里物理老师说，因为两个人当时都没接触地面，处于绝缘状态，所以没死成，如果有一只脚着了地，两个人必死无疑。
　　 近日获悉，林先生是在宋彬彬两次提审他之后做出自杀决定的。第一次提审，宋让他交代少年空军学校的事，旁边站着一个1米8多的粗壮男生，当胸重重给了他一拳。林先生被打倒在地，躺了半天起不来。第二次是深夜，林先生与历史老师朱学希一起被宋彬彬提审，宋彬彬坐着，让他们跪着，旁边站着几个女红卫兵。红卫兵们用皮带抽他们，林先生挨了打，朱老师被抽得更厉害。那天夜里林莽决定与母亲一起触电自杀。他至今清楚记得，宋彬彬与众不同，两次都没穿红卫兵军服，而是绸衬衫和裙子，弱女子的身材。林莽先生92岁了，对生命中最残酷的一幕记忆尤新，同时被殴打的朱学希老师也还在世。私设公堂的宋彬彬没有动手打人，她只是坐着审讯她的老师，罚他们给她下跪，对老师动拳头、抡皮带的都是站在她身边的打手。胡志涛老师的肋骨不是宋彬彬打折的，卞校长和后来遇难的几位女附中老师以及北京市和全国的死难老师和同学，没有一个是宋彬彬亲手打死的，但是给“要武”的毛泽东戴上红卫兵袖章的是宋彬彬，而且她至今视为无上光荣。可以辩论红卫兵袖章是不是血染红的，但是死在红卫兵手下的无数有血有肉的生命是不争的事实。
　　 从死亡的诱惑中解脱了的林先生大彻大悟了，决定再不去死，直面红卫兵的暴力。说到文革中依然兢兢业业，抢救图书，老人摇头长叹，对胡杰说：“愚蠢啊！你真想不到我有多么愚蠢！”
　　 影片最后是一个 “北京市教育系统部分文革受难者名单”，单位名下是黑底白字的人名，像黑暗中的白骨，诉说他们在那个野蛮的年代怎样死去。在“北京师范大学附属女子中学”名下，卞仲耘后面还有８个名字：胡秀正、梁希孔、周学敏、赵炳炎、宗传训、王英同、关炳衡、王永海（失踪）。“北京大学”名下的死难者名单占了３个页面，有些名字很熟悉，都是业界精英。名单长达5分钟，一排排白骨组成的长城，比红色高棉的人头骨墙更加坚实、壮观。这仅仅是王友琴女士收集的文革死难者中一小部分，如果把文革中全部死难者的名单排出来，一部长达一年的影片也难尽述。
　　
　　 没有底线的卑鄙
　　
　　 《我虽死去》讲的是文革中学生打校长的故事，有被打死的校长，却没有打她的学生的镜头。铁证如山，言之凿凿，凶手却自始至终不露面。假如是刑侦片，这样安排无疑是个败笔；作为纪录片，这个空白越发令人遗憾。除了义不容辞的王友琴，连个出来作旁证的当年女附中学生都没有。那一代人阙如，无论作为凶手反省，还是作为目击者作证，没有人出镜，是这部杰出影片明显的缺憾。
　　胡杰尽了力，王晶垚也尽了心，但是他们没有争取到一个人出镜或者仅仅出声儿。凶手不用说了，目击者有种种顾虑，人情大于人命，是这一代文革遗民的道德。当今中国，正是这一代人支撑着不尊重生命的红卫兵政权。
　　 王晶垚是一个宽厚的苦主，他只控告过袁淑娥，这个校外人员曾经是卞仲耘的熟人，一个恨人不死、恨天下不乱的恶人，借文革报私仇，到女附中全校批斗校領導的大會上“控訴”卞校長，煽动情绪，又带领学生去卞校长家中贴大字报。袁淑娥犯有诬陷和教唆罪行，对卞仲耘直接动过手，闯过家，对卞仲耘死亡负有不可推卸的罪责。
　　 王晶垚没有控告打人的红卫兵，她们毕竟是卞校长的学生。他毫不介意他们是否道歉，更没有等待手上有血的人道歉。他只是希望她们真心悔悟，救赎自己。夺人生命怎么能只靠一句道歉就了结？！有人说王先生等待了40年，王先生自己说，他从未等待过什么道歉。该对全体文革受难者悔罪的是当权者！当年的红卫兵们却连自己迷恋的道歉之说也没有身体力行，她们已走过半个多世纪的人生之路，这些老兵虽然劳燕分飞，天各一方，却死死守着当年恐怖暴行的秘密，没有一个人打破死一样的沉默。
　　 《我虽死去》在网上传播后，有两个当年的学生来到王家。王先生激动、欣慰，热情招待她们，跟她们合影留念，后来还把这张照片寄给一家历史杂志，虽然她们并未道歉。
　　 这两个人后来再没去过王家，倒是见了回国定居的宋彬彬好几次，有她们发在网上灯红酒绿的照片为证。从此女附中的老红卫兵们打破了沉寂，一个恶毒下流的诽谤在他们中间不胫而走：“王晶垚都85啦，家里还养着小蜜！一边搞小蜜，一边给前妻喊冤，两头儿全让他占了。” 时间没有洗刷这个老红卫兵群体的罪恶，年龄没有改变她们的下流，她们仍像40年前一样，凭借充满卑鄙的想象力诽谤人，靠着浸透毒汁的舌头谋杀人。
　　所谓小蜜，那年已经75岁，是一位丧偶的退休大学老师。影片中有她一个镜头，一双手给王先生端来一个饭盒，然后是一个蹣跚走回厨房的背影。对这位女性，王先生眼里尽是敬意，话里充满感激：“我这个老伴儿，我对她说过很重要的一句话，我说，我有这样一件事，我要做这样一件事，希望你支持。她同意了，我们才结婚，30多年了。她很同情我的不幸遭遇，对我一直照顾得非常好。对几个孩子，不是亲生，胜似亲生，感情非常非常好。”
　　 这样两位可以作她们父母的老人，热情接待了两个不速之客，没有揣摩她们登门的动机，更没有想到她们会编造恶言，传播蜚语。王晶垚先生家墙上挂的都是基督教绘画，他特别喜欢那幅《圣母子》版画，因为母与子两对眼睛里传达出人类最深沉的爱。两位老人以德报怨，收获的却是作践。墙上那幅《最后的晚餐》画的是人的背叛，学生的背叛比起犹大来，无耻尤加。《马太福音》里说，卖耶稣的犹大，看见耶稣已经定了罪，就后悔了，把那30块钱拿回来还给祭司长和长老，承认自己犯了罪：“我卖了无辜之人的血，是有罪了。”他们说：“那与我们有什么相干？你自己承当吧！”犹大就把那银钱丢在殿里，出去吊死了。在女附中的红卫兵们面前，犹大当得起义人，看到结果，立即认罪，承担罪责。她们40年都没达到犹大的觉悟，而且继续堕落。
　　 王晶垚先生保存的女附中革委会代表字条上有宋彬彬、刘进的名字，这两个名字出现过3次：6月2日贴大字报，7月31日成立红卫兵，8月5日在卞仲耘尸体面前，8月18日在天安门城楼上。无论刘少奇的文革，还是毛泽东的文革，都离不开她们。她们始终站在文革的主动方面，既得到刘少奇的支持，也受到毛泽东的肯定。宋彬彬献给毛泽东袖章上面的“红卫兵”3个字，是刘进等人从“红旗”杂志、“人民卫生报”、“为女民兵题照”3处集来的，镂空刻在硬纸板上，用油墨滚筒印在红布袖标上。她们处心积虑，机关用尽，不同于跟风而起的红卫兵。卞校长遇害时，宋彬彬和刘进是校革委会的负责人，都是年满18岁的中共党员，对卞校长之死负有不能逃脱的法律责任。
　　西方法院正门大厅里通常都站着罗马神话中的正义女神，一块黑布蒙住双眼，无分亲疏厚薄，左手执正天平，右手仗义持剑。拉丁系语国家的司法一词都从正义女神的名字iustitia演化而来。意大利文是Giustizia，西班牙文是Justicia，德文是Justitz，法文是Justice，英文中的司法、审判与正义是同一个词justice。
　　 本杰明&#8226;哈里斯是一位美国检察官, 在为民伸张正义的岗位上战斗23载，近年一直追踪红卫兵犯罪集团。检察官看完《我虽死去》，怒不可遏，拍案断喝：“宋彬彬、刘进以及所有红卫兵们，别太沉缅于舒适的晚景。我们决不会忘记！”你们听到正义女神的剑在悬响吗？
　　绚丽奢华的“光荣”
　　 胡杰和影片里的几位证人想借文革40周年之际提请当局和国人注意那个至今未结的案子，却被禁演。《我虽死去》至今未解禁，还连累2007年的“云之南纪录影像展”遭腰斩，殃及46位参展者的39部影片。那位给王晶垚先生写匿名信的75岁老人不幸言中：“时候还没到。”
　　 《我虽死去》无涉色情与暴力，没有触犯国家广电总局、文化部和新闻出版总署关于影视音像制品审查制度里的禁令。影片不能上演，原因仅仅是触了文革雷区。
　　 去年9月，一部叫《光荣与梦想》的纪录片问世，制成光碟，长达2小时10分49秒，每张售价10元。此碟与《我虽死去》在时代、人物和个别画面上都有重合，但网络、门市畅销无阻。
　　 《光荣与梦想》记的是“北京师范大学附属实验中学90华诞庆典”，实验中学就是卞仲耘生前所在的师大女附中。关于这所学校，卞仲耘的前任，林默涵夫人孙岩校长说过:“有人给我们学校做过统计，说我们学校的学生中有党中央主席的孩子，有共和国主席的孩子，有6个元帅的孩子，有12个副总理的孩子，再往后数就数不清了。老师们曾开玩笑说: 如果我们召集家长会的话，可以开大半个政治局会议啦。”这话是炫耀，也是这所皇家女校的实情。孙校长幸运，早早调离，逃脱了卞校长那样的厄运。
　　 《光荣与梦想》证实了孙校长的话，这次庆典大红榜上果然皇亲国戚济济一堂，连毛泽东在世时就被逐出宫墙的儿媳妇都没遗漏，更加抢眼的是那些官居正三品的校友。让我惊骇的是，这个权贵方阵里也有当年很风光的红卫兵头领，例如自己不动手却让身边打手出拳头抡皮带的宋彬彬，例如和她一起贴出第一张大字报的马德秀。30年前彻底否定文革，她们因为打砸抢的历史，当在“三种人”之列，今天宋衣锦还乡，马加封副部级大学党委书记，双双堂而皇之卷土重来。
　　 胡杰影片里跟在卞校长被打死后面那个“8.18”天安门城楼上的镜头，也出现在《光荣与梦想》里，不过是在开头部分，人物位置也不同于胡片。嘉宾们进入人民大会堂，打开一本装帧精美的书，宋彬彬给毛泽东献红卫兵袖章的照片就赫然跳出，对页上是卞仲耘模糊的照片，仿佛“8.18”以后卞仲耘还健在，自豪地看着给毛泽东戴袖章的宋彬彬，看着学习毛泽东著作的红卫兵、军训的红卫兵。给这个画面配的解说词是：“在九十年的悠悠长河中，实验中学培养了数以万计的志士才俊，积淀了深厚的人文底蕴。”志士才俊，显然指画面上的宋彬彬。选这一张代表照片阐释宋彬彬的内涵，我自然联想到胡杰影片里卞仲耘的死。
　　 这张与卞仲耘之死分不开的宋志士与毛泽东的合影出现在《光荣与梦想》光碟里，出现在《光荣与梦想》纪念画册里，又特别在9月9日这个特殊的日子出现在女附中校园里竖起的大型展板上。9月5日是校庆日，9月9日是毛泽东忌日，这张照片到底纪念什么呢？肯定不是纪念41年前被红卫兵打死在这个校园里的卞校长。校方一而再、再而三在“光荣与梦想”的光环里炫耀这张照片，究竟要给学生们树立什么样的荣辱观、灌输什么样的梦想？
　　 庆典会场设在人民大会堂，央视新闻首播
　　 罗京主持，包括各级领导人和外国使节在内的近6000名人出席，规模远远超出了孙岩校长炫耀的半个政治局会议，场面堪比春晚，效果直追当年《东方红》。全世界还有哪一家中学能在国会大厦开派对？一个育人的学校跑到议政的地界作秀，先乱了规矩。2500年前孔夫子就主张有教无类，在教育面前人人平等；教育部的实验学校却只瞄着皇亲国戚、达官显贵，还要映片卖碟，推广全国，为反文化、反人类的“老子英雄儿好汉”现身说法。“各级领导”多方支持，甚至请来外国使节观看这种愚昧表演，丢国家的人，现民族的眼，天地之间，咄咄怪事！
　　 袁爱俊校长是这场华诞庆典的上下人物，幕前表演，幕后操纵，台上督阵，台下逢迎，从开场致辞到挤进教师大合唱营盘收场，可谓鞠躬尽瘁。她是光碟《光荣与梦想》的总策划和总监制，版权页上除了袁爱俊的名字，还有35个人名和5个参与制作的专业单位名称，总导演是当过央视春晚总导演的王冼平，下设5位导演，中央电视台和中国新闻社联合摄制。这里有势利眼的谄媚，暴发户的炫耀，得着机会狠狠捞一把的贪婪，但是，仅凭这些基本功，袁校长能量再大也难撑起这么大的台面，何况上任不到一年，脚跟还没站稳呢。
　　 王晶垚先生在给袁爱俊的公开信里指出，将宋彬彬的活动和“8.18”事件作为光荣业绩加以炫耀，是对中国全体文革受难者及其家属的再一次最严重的伤害，对历史的亵渎，是公然诱发“文革”卷土重来的危险信号。出席庆典的“各级领导”不会不知道这个学校那段与宋彬彬分不开的历史，不会不知道这个学校的红卫兵最先打死了校长。41年后，他们在文革暴力的发源地举办的这场旷日持久的校庆秀里扎扎实实扮演了复辟先锋的角色。
　　胡杰影片里请不到的人，都拿了请柬为《光荣与梦想》充数儿，《我虽死去》里的主人公卞校长遗属却没有受到庆典邀请。两部纪录片，两种鲜明的立场，两个不相称的营垒。按照先后顺序，是《光荣与梦想》挑战《我虽死去》？CCTV叫板胡杰？
　　 一位远在芝加哥的中国学者，把两位八、九十岁的老人和一个不十分专业的独立制片人撮合起来，没有一分钱外援，各自投入对历史的责任感，共同做出60几分钟的黑白片。今年一月，香港 “二零零八华语纪录片奖”的评委们把长片组最高奖授予《我虽死去》。面对滚滚复辟浪潮，几位小人物挺身而出，为那个疯狂年代的滔天罪行留下见证，是这部纪录片的价值。

from: http://www.counterpunch.org/barahona05172005.html

Its Secret Deal with Otto Reich to Wreck Cuba’s Economy

Reporters Without Borders Unmasked

By DIANA BARAHONA

When Robert Menard founded Reporters Without Borders twenty years ago, he gave his group a name which evokes another French organization respected worldwide for its humanitarian work and which maintains a strict neutrality in political conflicts ­ Doctors Without Borders. But RSF (French acronym) has been anything but nonpartisan and objective in its approach to Latin America and to Cuba in particular.

From the beginning, RSF has made Cuba its No. 1 target. Allegedly founded to advocate freedom of the press around the world and to help journalists under attack, the organization has called Cuba “the world’s biggest prison for journalists.” It even gives the country a lower ranking on its press freedom index than countries where journalists routinely have been killed, such as Colombia, Peru and Mexico. RSF has waged campaigns aimed at discouraging Europeans from vacationing in Cuba and the European Union from doing business there ­ its only campaigns worldwide intended to damage a country’s economy.

The above is not a matter of chance because it turns out that RSF is on the payroll of the U.S. State Department and has close ties to Helms-Burton-funded Cuban exile groups.

As a majority of members of Congress work toward normalizing trade and travel with Cuba, the extremist anti-Castro groups that have dictated U.S. Cuba policy for 40 years continue working tirelessly to maintain an economic stranglehold on the island. Their support for RSF is part of this overall strategy.

Havana-based journalist Jean-Guy Allard wrote a book about RSF’s leader (El expediente Robert Ménard: Por qué Reporteros sin Fronteras se ensaña con Cuba, Quebec: Lanctôt, 2005) which lays out the pieces of the puzzle regarding Menard’s activities, associations and sources of funding in an attempt to explain what he calls Menard’s “obsession” with Cuba. On April 27 this year the pieces began to come together: Thierry Meyssan, president of the Paris daily, Red Voltaire, published an article in which he claimed Menard had negotiated a contract with Otto Reich and the Center for a Free Cuba (CFC) in 2001. Reich was a trustee of the center, which receives the bulk of its funding from the U.S. Agency for International Development. The contract, according to Meyssan, was signed in 2002 around the time Reich was appointed Special Envoy to the Western Hemisphere for the Secretary of State. The initial payment for RSF’s services was approximately 24,970 euros in 2002 ($25,000), which went up to 59,201 euros in 2003 ($50,000).

Lucie Morillon, RSF’s Washington representative, confirmed in an interview on April 29 that they are indeed receiving payments from the Center for a Free Cuba, and that the contract with Reich requires them to inform Europeans about the repression against journalists in Cuba and to support the families of journalists in prison. Morillon also said they received $50,000 from the CFC in 2004 and that this amount was consistent from year to year. But she denied that the anti-Cuba declarations on radio and television, full-page ads in Parisian dailies, posters, leafletting at airports and an April 2003 occupation of the Cuban tourism office in Paris were aimed at discouraging tourism to the island.

RSF’s emphasis on tourism is the key to understanding it’s role. After the 1989 fall of the Soviet Union, Eastern bloc support for Cuba’s economy soon came to a halt and what Cubans call the “special period” began. Almost all of Cuba’s sugar harvest had been sold to the communist bloc throughout the Cold War era and in return the island imported two-thirds of its food supply, nearly all its oil and 80 percent of its machinery and spare parts from the same sources. Suddenly 85 percent of Cuba’s foreign trade vanished. Deprived of petroleum, Cuban industries and transportation ground to a halt. For the first time in many years malnutrition on the island began to appear as rations were reduced to little more than rice and beans.

Washington saw the withdrawal of Soviet subsidies in 1989 and subsequent natural disasters that destroyed crops on the island as a chance to deal a deathblow to the Castro regime. The Miami extreme right, led by the Cuban American National Foundation (CANF), began to draw up plans to work with sympathetic government agencies toward that end. “Nothing nor no one will make us falter. We do not wish it, but if blood has to flow, it will flow,” wrote CANF chair Jorge Mas Canosa (Hernando Calvo Ospina, Bacardi: The Hidden War, London: Pluto Press, 2002).

But Cuba disappointed the plotters by surviving. A centerpiece of the island’s economic recovery was the government’s decision in 1992 to develop the tourism industry, which has gone a long way to replace the desperately needed foreign exchange the country had lost. Consequently, it came as no surprise that those wishing to see Cuba starve would want to damage its tourism-based economy through every conceivable form of sabotage. On the extreme end, Miami terrorists began to infiltrate the island to attack hotels and other tourist targets. Terrorist Luis Posada Carriles, who recently sought asylum in the U.S., organized a string of bombings of hotels in 1997 in which an Italian tourist died. Not only did Posada admit this to the New York Times in 1998, but he acknowledged that the leaders of CANF had bankrolled his operations and that Mas Canosa was personally in charge of overseeing the flow of funds and logistical support to carry out the operations. Terrorist Orlando Bosch is also suspected of playing a major role in these attacks.

Another project for bringing about the downfall of Cuba’s revolution was the 1996 Helms-Burton Act. Title IV allows the U.S. to impose sanctions against foreign investors in Cuba whose investments allegedly involve properties expropriated from people who are now U.S. nationals. This law, which was intended to force foreign companies and countries to refrain from doing business with Cuba, was written by leaders of the CANF, Bacardi lawyers and Otto Reich. Helms-Burton also provided additional funding to support Cuban dissidents with the intent of destabilizing the government ­ an aspect of great interest to exile groups. Organizations outside Cuba would be in charge of these funds, and this has developed into a lucrative business for them. USAID alone has distributed more than $34 million in funds related to Cuba since 1996, including its support of Otto Reich’s CFC.

In an interview with Colombian journalist Hernando Calvo Ospina (Calvo and Declercq, The Cuban Exile Movement, Melbourne: Ocean Press, 2000), Menard said his group had been supporting dissidents in Cuba since September 1995 and has always considered Cuba “the priority in Latin America.” Coincidentally or not, the Helms-Burton Act was already making its way through Congress in January 1995. After Clinton signed the bill into law in 1996, he sent a special ambassador to Europe to meet with NGOs whose work involved Cuba to propose they support the dissident movement. RSF attended one such meeting in Paris in late 1996. RSF was also represented at a meeting called by Pax Christi Netherlands at the Hague to create a pressure group against the Cuban government and support the dissident movement, according to Calvo.

In September 1998 Menard traveled to Havana to recruit people to write stories for RSF to publish. He later told Calvo in his interview, “we give $50 a month each to around twenty journalists so they can survive and stay in the country.” But Menard’s first representative in Cuba, veteran journalist Nestor Baguer, disputed that description of the relationship in interviews he gave to Granma after he revealed that he had been working for state security while posing as a dissident. Baguer maintained that RSF would only pay for articles turned in, and that they had to attack the Cuban government. He did not consider most of the so-called independent journalists to be either independent or journalists; few had received any formal training and he was forced to severely edit their copy ­ something he called a “terrible penance.”

Baguer recalled the first conversation he had with the RSF head in the back of a rental car: “What he wanted was for it to come straight from here. It seems before he was getting fed from Miami. But he wanted to have his Cuban source so it would be more credible.” Noting the small amounts Cubans were paid for their articles, Baguer speculated Menard was doing a “great business” (Allard).

In May 2004 the State Department issued a report to the president by the Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba. The report recommends $41 million in funding to promote Cuban “civil society” and specifically targets Cuban tourism. In Chapter I, “Hastening Cuba’s Transition,” part V, headed, “Deny Revenues to the Castro Regime,” there is a subheading, “Undermine Regime-sustaining Tourism,” which says, “Support efforts by NGOs in selected third countries to highlight human rights abuses in Cuba, as part of a broader effort to discourage tourist travel. This could be modeled after past initiatives, especially those by European NGOs, to boycott tourism to countries where there were broad human rights concerns.”

It does not take much to figure out which “European NGOs” have been boycotting tourism to Cuba. RSF is mentioned by name in the report in reference to its support for a jailed journalist whose writings it had published.

RSF’s patron at the CFC, Otto Reich, has a long history as a U.S. hit-man in Latin America. This includes helping to spring Orlando Bosch from prison in Venezuela while Reich was U.S. ambassador to that country under President Bush Sr. Bosch was in prison for blowing up a Cuban civilian passenger airplane, killing 73. His accomplice, Luis Posada Carriles, had already bribed his way out in 1985 and was working for the CIA in El Salvador, supplying the Contras from the Ilopango air base. Otto Reich was a major figure in the Iran-Contra scandal. Under the current Bush administration, Reich helped coordinate repeated attempts to oust Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. He was transferred to the NSC in November 2002, and while there he oversaw the February 2004 coup against Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide ­ an event in which RSF enthusiastically participated with a smear campaign against the Haitian leader.

Although Reporters without Borders’ attacks on Castro, Chavez and Aristide are perfectly alligned with the State Department’s policies, and though she admitted RSF was receiving money from Reich, Morillon denied that the governmant funding the group receives in any way affects its activities. She pointed out that RSF’s $50,000 payments from the CFC and a January grant of $40,000 from the National Endowment for Democracy only constitute a fraction of the organization’s budget. This is true, but Menard has other rich rightist friends in Europe and the U.S., including CFC director Manuel Cutillas, head of Bacardi. CFC’s executive director is Frank Calzon, another former director of CANF.

According to a January 20, 2004 article in El Nuevo Herald (”Reporters Without Borders Announces Campaign to Democratize Cuba”), Menard visited Miami that week and received a hero’s welcome. He was lionized in the press and honored by exile leaders at a dinner at Casa Bacardi. He met with the Cuban Liberty Council (a split-off from the CANF), the editors of The Miami Herald and Mayor Manny Diaz. Menard was also a guest on a Radio Mambí program hosted by government-funded exile leader Nancy Pérez Crespo, director of Nueva Prensa, a website which posts articles phoned in by Cuban dissidents. In the media he announced that RSF would be holding a meeting on March 18 with European political leaders in Brussels, headquarters of the European Union, to promote democratization in Cuba.

“In Brussels we want to propose elementary measures which can be applied to Cuba as a country that violates human rights,” Menard said. “Weren’t the European bank accounts of terrorists frozen? Why can’t that be done in the case of Cuba?” Menard was on a roll. He said the Brussels event would be just the beginning of new campaigns carried out by RSF in the European media to denounce repression in Cuba. Allard alleges Frank Calzon was also present at the meeting in Brussels, but the executive director refused to comment when he was reached by phone at the CFC.

So loyal is Robert Menard to his patrons at the State Department that he wrote an open letter to the European Commissioner for Development, Louis Michel, on the eve of the diplomat’s visit to Cuba this March (www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=12411). The European Union had decided to adopt a more constructive position with respect to Cuba, suspending economic sanctions that were imposed in June 2003 at the urging of Bush ally, former Spanish President Jose Maria Asnar. The State Department’s Richard Boucher condemned the decision to suspend sanctions on Cuba, as long as “objectives haven’t been reached,” and in his letter to Michel, Menard likewise urged the European Union to keep the pressure on Cuba.

In addition to its other sources of funding, RSF receives free publicity from Saatchi and Saatchi, the third pillar of the world’s fourth-largest marketing and public relations conglomerate, Publicis Groupe. Publicis enjoys a near-monopoly on French advertising and as a result, slick RSF propaganda is featured at no cost to the organization in Parisian dailies and supermarkets. It also enjoys free printing of the books it sells by Vivendi Universal Publishing. All of these services have to be factored into RSF’s budget. Although the reason for Publicis Groupe’s astounding generosity is not known, it is worth noting that a major Publicis client is Bacardi, whose 2001 advertising budget was just under $50 million.

Diana Barahona is a freelance journalists and a member of the Northern California Media Guild. She has been an election observer in Venezuela and El Salvador and written other articles on RSF for the Guild Reporter (www.newsguild.org). She can be reached at dlbarahona@cs.com.

from: http://www.chinafuehrer.de/de/node/70

The Riots in Lhasa(Ein Artikel von Professor Eirik Granqvist
aus Finnland)
Mi, 04/02/2008 - 18:48 – shan
　　by Eirik Granqvist, a foreign expert in Shanghai who
visited Tibet in 2006

　　”The western medias announced that China had cut all
information and that articles about the riots could not be
sent out! I got mad about all the apparently incorrect
information and wrote this article and two other similar
ones although I am not a journalist but just because I could
not stand all the bad things about China that was told. I
sent them by e-mail without problems and they arrived well
but two newspapers did neither respond neither publish what
I had written. The third answered and wanted a shorter
version that was published many days later as a
normal ‘readers voice’. What Dalai Lama had said was largely
published every day together with a real anti-China
propaganda. What I had written was apparently too China
friendly for the ‘free press’.”

　　I was very shocked by what I had seen in the television
and been reading in China daily about the riots in Lhasa.
The most that shocked me was anyhow may be not the cruel
events by themselves but how the medias in my country of
origin, Finland, reported the events. A friend has scanned
and sent me articles and I have checked also myself what can
be found at Internet.

　　Very few Finnish people have ever visited Tibet, but I
was there together with my wife in 2006. This was private
persons and not as a part of a group-travel. I have seen
Lhasa with my own eyes. I have been talking and chatting
with people there. This was without any restrictions. Okay,
we had a lovely and very competent guide that helped us much
and took us where we wanted to go in the mornings but in the
afternoons we were alone. Therefore I think that I have
something to tell.

　　I am also interested in history and know more than people
in general. When writing this, I do not have any reference
books so I write out of my memory. If I do a small mistake
somewhere, I beg your pardon. Anyhow, I think that this
gives my writing an objectivity. I am well aware of that I
will be accused for this and that for writing what I think
is the truth. I will be accused by those who think that they
know but do not know and by those that haven’t seen by their
own eyes.

　　Tibet was for centuries an autonomous concordat between
Nepal and China. Sometimes China ruled Nepal as well. The
king of Tibet used therefore to have one Chinese wife and
one Nepalese and then a number of Tibetan ones.

　　With the fifth Dalai Lama, the religious and the
political power were unified under the rule of one person,
The Dalai Lama. Tibet became a theocratic dictatorship and
closed itself for the rest of the world. No foreigners were
anymore allowed in.

　　At the end of the nineteenth century, the famous Swedish
traveller Sven Hedin made an attempt to reach Lhasa but was
sent politely back, out of Tibet by Dalai Lama.

　　A French woman, Alexandra David-Néel was more successful.
She visited Lhasa dressed as a Tibetan pilgrim and she was
fluent in the Tibetan language. She told how she was afraid
many times that she should be discovered and then she knew
that she like other suspects or opponents should “happen to
fall down” from the walls of the Potala palace.

　　Tibet was not a paradise. Tibet was an inhuman
dictatorship!

　　The weakened Chinese Qing Dynasty had more and more lost
its influence in Tibet. Tibet became more and more
interesting for the Russian empire in the north and the
British in the south.

　　In 1903 a British army expedition directed by the colonel
Younghusband reached Lhasa. The British lost 4 soldiers but
slaughtered more the 700 Tibetans that tryed to stop them,
mainly by magic. The British installed “a commercial
representation” in Lhasa. The Chinese evacuated Dalai Lama
to the Qinghai plateau where he hade limited rights of move,
probably for preventing him from having contacts with the
British occupants.

　　The Finnish national hero, Marshal Mannerheim, visited
him there in 1907 during his famous horseback trip through
central Asia. He was then a colonel in the Tsar Russian army
and his trip was in reality a spy trip. Therefore the 13th
Dalai Lama was interesting.

　　The power of Dalai Lama was weakened. In 1950 the PLA
marched in to Tibet without war. The 14th Dalai Lama seems
at the beginning to have accepted this just as a security
for his power as the theocratic dictator he was. He enlarged
and restructured the Norbulingka Summer Palace in a luxury
way in 1954.

　　The Chinese decided anyhow to finish with the cruel
theocratic dictatorship under which the opponents fell down
from Potala. The borders where during this dictatorship
closed for all foreigners and the only schools where the
religious ones. It is well known that it is easier to rule a
population with a low education and is ignoring the outside
world. In Tibet, about 5% of the population owned everything
and the rest literally nothing. About 40% of the Tibetans
were monks and nuns living as parasites on the rest of the
population that had to feed them. Tibet was not a paradise!

　　Now China decided that the Tibetans should have the same
rights and place in the society as the rest of the country’s
population. The monasteries should be emptied from their
excessively large monk and nun populations.

　　Tibet could earlier be reached only by some horse trails
and was for the rest insulated. The Chinese built rapidly a
trafficable road. The insulation was broken.

　　In 1959, the young Dalai Lama caused a peoples upraising,
using the religion as power since he was loosing his own
powerful position. The upraising was however stopped, may be
in not a too clever and smooth manner. Dalai Lama then left
Tibet and his fellow citizens and escaped to India wherefrom
he has continued to fight for his come back and reinstall
the theocratic dictatorship that China will never allow
again.

　　Then followed the ten years of Cultural Revolution that
was an unhappy time for all China that closed itself to the
rest of the world.

　　Now Lhasa has a modern airport and a railway. China has
invested a lot in Tibet. The standard of living has been
raised a lot in Tibet and last Xmas I have seen Tibetans
spending sun-holidays on Hainan Island! Very lucky looking
old women in traditional dresses walking on the beach with
their husbands and the youngsters dressed like other young
people enjoying the beach life.

　　The possibilities for Dalai Lama to take back his power
has diminished and he does not anymore have the population
with him. China and India are developing their cooperation
and with the closer friendship, India will for sure also not
more admit Dalai Lama to disturb this development. His
possibilities to act against China will be diminished.

　　Therefore he undertook recently an around the world
diplomatic travel since he has seen the possibility of
harming the now good international image of China and
provoking boycotts of the Olympic games in Beijing.

　　The Lhasa riots where very well prepared. Curriers where
crossing the borders illegally for to see Dalai Lama and get
his orders. A group of foreign mountain climbers filmed
recently across the border an unlucky incident when one of
these curriers got shot and another that crossed the border
openly declared that he wanted to go to see the Dalai Lama.
I have seen that in television just before I left for China
in November.

　　China is no longer a closed country. There is no need for
illegal border crossings if you are not doing something
illegally! You just ask for a passport and take the
necessary visas and cross the border at a legal border
crossing or better, just take a regular flight from Lhasa to
Kathmandu!

　　There where no peaceful demonstrations in Lhasa that
where brutally knocked down! Young men went to action after
a well prepared scenario at many places at the same time so
that police and fire brigade should be taken by surprise and
unable to act everywhere at the same time. This was
successful! People where just knocked down without
differences and all what could be broken was broken in the
shortest possible time. With Molotov cocktails, fires where
lit and fire cars where stopped. 18 normal citizens where
killed without feelings and one police. The police had order
to not respond with firearms for not being internationally
blamed!

　　When I have seen the filmed riots in television, my
diagnosis was immediately clear. The scenario was the same
that I had seen many times of organized riots in France
since more the forty years of tight familiar contacts and 21
years of living there. The difference was only that less
ordinary people seemed to take part in Lhasa. The rioters
where surprisingly few but well organized! China’s positive
image in the world should be damaged!

　　Dalai Lama is acting as the friendly and peaceful father.
This is an old trick that also dictators like Hitler and
Stalin used. I am not comparing him with them but he is
acting like a demon when he tries to take back his power at
any cost, not once caring for human lives and against
Buddhistic non-violence principles. It was a try to do a
coup d’ètat that failed. Now he is asking for international
help for to stop the violence that he, himself had planned!

　　When I visited Tibet in 2006, I was surprised by the
relaxed atmosphere and the few policemen in Lhasa. All that
I have seen were Tibetans. Not the Han-Chinese. The
atmosphere was remarkably peaceful and gave a picture of
general well living. There was no oppressed feeling like I
had seen so many times in the Soviet Union and its
satellites before all that non-human system collapsed.
People in Lhasa where friendly and wanted to speak to me,
mostly without success since I do not speak Chinese nor
Tibetan but up and then somebody could speak some words in
English. Their wish for contact was just out of normal
curiosity towards the foreigners.

　　I had heard that the religious life should been oppressed
but it was flowering! I had also heard that so many Han
Chinese where moved in that the Tibetans where now very few
in Lhasa. I did however see much more Tibetans there. May be
that the Han Chinese where hiding?

　　The western medias announced that China had cut all
information and that articles about the riots could not be
sent out! I got mad about all the apparently incorrect
information and wrote this article and two other similar
ones although I am not a journalist but just because I could
not stand all the bad things about China that was told. I
sent them by e-mail without problems and they arrived well
but two newspapers did neither respond neither publish what
I had written. The third answered and wanted a shorter
version that was published many days later as a
normal “readers voice”. What Dalai Lama had said was largely
published every day together with a real anti-China
propaganda. What I had written was apparently too China
friendly for the “free press”.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3n5IflGGIas

China’s continuing crackdown on Tibetan pro-independence protesters is a big, big issue here in San Francisco. Why, just the other day, I was coming out my front door, and there was one of my neighbors – a very nice woman in her fifties, albeit an archetypal limousine liberal, typical of the breed. So typical that she might almost be mistaken for a living, breathing, walking, talking cliché. She hates George W. Bush and the neocons because she’s against the (Iraq) war, but she’s eager to “liberate” Darfur – and, lately, Tibet. That morning, as she earnestly informed me, she was on her way to a meeting of the Board of Supervisors (our town council) to exhort them to vote for a resolution condemning the Chinese government’s actions and calling for “freedom” for Tibet. What she doesn’t realize, and doesn’t want to know, is that she and the neocons – the very ones who brought us the Iraq war – are united on the Tibet issue. I tried, in vain, to point this out to her, but she just shook her head, cut the conversation short, and was on her way…

As it turned out, the supervisors voted for a meaningless, toothless resolution, stripped of provocative rhetoric, much to the dismay of the far-lefties who argued for a stronger statement. The initiative for this effort was made by supervisor Chris Daly, an obnoxious left-liberal with delusions of grandeur, whose pose of self-righteousness is both grating and characteristic of his sort.

Prior to the vote on the Daly resolution, which was vociferously supported by the supposedly pacifistic supporters of the Dalai Lama, the Chinese consulate was… firebombed. This is what the War Party would like to do to China.

Fortunately, there are a number of restraining factors that get in the way: in the meantime, however, our preening politicians demagogue the China issue, and none so brazenly as Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, my congressional representative, who is merely Chris Daly writ large. Traveling all the way to India, at taxpayers’ expense, Madam Speaker visited with the Dalai Lama at Dharamsala and announced that if Americans don’t speak out against Beijing’s repression in Tibet “we have lost all moral authority to speak on behalf of human rights anywhere in the world.”

Pelosi is a longtime opponent of Beijing – not just the Chinese government, but China itself. Pelosi and the unions she depends on for political support despise all things Chinese for the simple reason that China, today, is more capitalist than the U.S. – in spite of the Chinese Communist Party’s ostensible commitment to Marxist ideology. Thinly veiled racist-chauvinist bilge is routinely directed at the Chinese people by union bosses and right-wing paleo-protectionists, who stupidly claim that the “chinks” (or, as John McCain would put it, the “gooks”) are stealing “American jobs” – as if Americans have a hereditary right to the very best salaries on earth, a “right” that doesn’t have to be earned by competitive business practices but is conferred on them by virtue of their nationality. Like hell it is.

Lucrative trade and cultural exchanges between China and California, as well as the fact that many Chinese in her congressional district have continuing ties to the mainland, have – so far – failed to deter Pelosi and her fellow Know-Nothings: politics, as they used to say during the Cultural Revolution in China, is in command.

These Sinophobic protests, engineered behind the scenes by leftist union bosses and God knows who else, are focused on the passing of the Olympic torch, which is slowly but surely making its way to Beijing, where the games are scheduled to be held Aug. 8-24. Here in the Bay Area, activists in the “Free Darfur” movement announced they were mounting demonstrations urging China to “extinguish the flames of genocide” in Darfur in San Francisco on April 9, the day the flame passes through the city.

	Pre-Order this Book

The hosting of the Olympic Games in Beijing is the focus of much pride in China, seen by the people as well as the ruling caste as symbolic of the nation’s arrival in modernity. As such, the worldwide protests and political posturing of preening politicians – from Pelosi to Nicolas Sarkozy – are bitterly resented and have been met with increasingly shrill denunciations by the Chinese state-controlled media – a sentiment that probably understates popular resentment of Western criticism in the Chinese “street.”

I know we are supposed to believe that the vast majority of the Chinese people are groaning under the weight of Commie oppression and sympathize (albeit silently) with the downtrodden Tibetans, but that is hardly the case. Indeed, the exact opposite is closer to the truth. Every time the West gets up on its high horse and lectures the Chinese government about its lack of “morality,” the tide of anti-Western Chinese nationalism rises higher.

We