Home Page - Chinese Despertandome

CN — LARRY ROMANOFF: 民主，最危险的宗教 — 第15部分——中国不是西方

Featured

Luisa Vasconcellos

April 6, 2023

Democracy, The Most Dangerous Religion

民主，最危险的宗教

Part 15 – China is Not the West

第15部分——中国不是西方

By Larry Romanoff, December 21, 2022

拉里·罗曼诺夫著，2022年12月21日

译者：珍珠

CHINESE ENGLISH

China is different in having a one-party government, which Americans consider a religious heresy, but the system has enormous advantages. Here, there is no forced separation of officials on the basis of political ideology. China’s entire social spectrum is represented in government in the same way as in Chinese or any other society. There is no partisan in-fighting. Unlike the West, China’s system looks for consensus rather than conflict. Government decision-making is not a sport where my team has to win. It is simply a group of people with various viewpoints working together to obtain a consensus for policy and action for the overall good of their nation. China’s one-party system is superior in virtually all respects to what we have in the West, and how can it be otherwise when the nation’s government officials don’t waste their time fighting juvenile ideological battles with opposition parties.

中国的一党政府不同，美国人认为它是一种宗教异端，但这种体制有巨大的优势。这里不存在基于政治意识形态的官员被迫分离。中国的整个社会阶层在政府中的代表性与在中国或其他任何社会中的代表性是一样的。战斗中没有党派之争。与西方不同，中国的体制寻求共识而不是冲突。政府决策不是我的团队必胜的运动。它只是一群观点各异的人为了国家的整体利益而共同努力，就政策和行动达成共识。中国的一党制几乎在所有方面都优于西方的一党制，如果中国政府官员不浪费时间与反对党打年轻人的意识形态斗争，情况又怎么会如此呢。

One of the greatest deciding factors permitting China’s rise is the lack of a belligerent political environment due to the absence of multi-party politics. China’s one-party government is in for the long term; it makes no short-term decisions for the sake of political expediency. China makes decisions for the good of the whole country and, having made them, implements them. There is no partisanship, there are no lobbyists or special interest groups with the power to skew important decisions and rob the population of what it might have had. The benefits of this system can be seen in its results. China has already far surpassed the undeveloped nations that adopted Western democratic governments, and likely has a brighter future than most of them. Why is the West so eager for China to abandon a centuries-old system that clearly works well, in favor of one designed for ideological battles, conflicts and shouting wars?

允许中国崛起的最大决定因素之一是，由于缺乏多党政治，缺乏好战的政治环境。中国的一党政府将长期执政；它不会为了政治权宜之计而做出短期决定。中国做决定是为了整个国家的利益，而且在做了决定之后，就会执行这些决定。没有党派之争，也没有说客或特殊利益集团有权扭曲重要决策，剥夺民众可能拥有的东西。这种制度的好处可以从其结果中看到。中国已经远远超过了采用西方民主政府的不发达国家，而且可能比大多数国家有更光明的未来。西方为什么如此渴望中国放弃一个显然运行良好的有几百年历史的体系，转而支持一个专为意识形态斗争、冲突和呐喊战争设计的体系？

China’s one-party system is the only thing saving it from destruction, and China needs to stop apologising for it. It is precisely due to China’s so-called “authoritarian” system that only the smartest and most competent can get into leadership positions. It is due only to China’s one-party system that 800 million people have been lifted out of poverty and that China’s GDP has increased by 1700%, a feat never achieved in history by any so-called democracy. And while I don’t want to be unkind, if you’re Chinese, how do you imagine that your “democratic participation” would have improved the above results? My advice is to be grateful for what you have, because you really don’t know how lucky you are.

中国的一党制是唯一能让它免于毁灭的制度，中国需要停止为它道歉。正是由于中国的所谓“威权”制度，只有最聪明、最有能力的人才能担任领导职务。正是由于中国的一党制，8亿人摆脱了贫困，中国的GDP增长了1700%，这是历史上任何所谓的民主都从未实现过的壮举。虽然我不想表现得不友善，但如果你是中国人，你认为你的“民主参与”会如何改善上述结果呢？我的建议是感激你所拥有的东西，因为你真的不知道自己有多幸运。

China’s government leaders manage by consensus, not by power, authority or bullying. It is their job to create agreement and unified willing participation in the country’s policies to meet its goals. At this level there are no children, and there is no one person with the power to start a war just because he doesn’t like someone, or who is free to alienate other nations on the basis of some blind personal ideology. In China, many people and industries are permitted to present their case, but private or short-term interests will not emerge victorious in this system. Your proposals will receive support and will succeed only if they are to the long-term benefit of the country as a whole – the greatest good for the nation and for the population. In the US system, corporations control the government; in China’s, the government controls the corporations. And those firms may often not get their way even if they are government-owned. On the introduction of HSR (High-Speed Rail) in China, some Chinese airlines (especially the state-owned ones) complained like hell, and with good reason, because many had to dramatically scale back their flight schedules since many people prefer the train. But the wide HSR network was seen as being in the best interests of the entire country and it went ahead. That is also why China has by far the best, and the least expensive, mobile phone system in the world.

中国政府领导人的管理方式是共识，而不是权力、权威或欺凌。他们的工作是达成一致意见，统一自愿地参与该国的政策，以实现其目标。在这个层面上没有孩子，也没有一个人有权仅仅因为不喜欢某个人就发动战争，或者因为某个人盲目的个人意识形态就可以自由地疏远其他国家。在中国，许多人和行业都被允许陈述自己的观点，但私人或短期利益不会在这个体系中胜出。你的提议将得到支持，只有在符合整个国家的长期利益——对国家和人民的最大利益——的情况下才会成功。在美国体制下，企业控制着政府；在中国，政府控制着这些公司。即使是国有企业，这些公司也往往无法如愿以偿。关于高铁在中国的引入，一些中国航空公司（尤其是国有航空公司）抱怨不已，理由很充分，因为很多人更喜欢高铁，所以他们不得不大幅缩短航班时间。但广袤的高铁网络被视为符合整个国家的最佳利益，并得以推进。这也是中国迄今为止拥有世界上最好、最便宜的移动电话系统的原因。

One American was trying to convince some of my Chinese friends of the great benefits of the uninformed selecting the incompetent, claiming that American-style democracy “gives you more choices”. Choices of what? He was equating the task of selecting the senior management of one of the largest and most important countries in the world, with buying shampoo in the supermarket. “I can give you more choices.” The many senior officials of China’s government are the only people who truly and completely understand the challenges China faces, both from within and from without, and who know the kind and quality of people needed to guide the nation. They are the only people who are competent to evaluate and judge those who are best suited to lead China through the next decades. Nobody outside of those central departments knows how to identify and select those who are capable of leading and protecting China. China today has leaders with a competence unmatched anywhere in the world, men and women who have devoted their lives to the difficult magic of making China a first-world country in only one or two generations, bringing this wonderful country to the international prominence it once had and will have again. And too many Americans, including all of the US government, would like very much to prevent this from happening because it is a challenge to their worldwide domination.

一个美国人试图说服我的一些中国朋友，让他们相信无知者选择无能者的巨大好处，声称美国式的民主“给了你更多选择”。选择什么？他把挑选世界上最大、最重要的国家之一的高级管理人员的任务与在超市购买洗发水相提并论。“我可以给你更多选择。”中国政府的许多高级官员是唯一真正、完全了解中国所面临的挑战的人，无论是从内部还是外部，他们都知道领导国家所需要的人的种类和素质。他们是唯一有能力评估和评判最适合领导中国走过未来几十年的人。这些中央部门以外的人都不知道如何识别和挑选有能力领导和保护中国的人。今天的中国有着世界上任何地方都无法匹敌的领导人，他们毕生致力于用一两代人的时间让中国成为第一世界国家这一艰巨的魔法，把这个美好的国家带到了曾经和将来的国际地位。包括美国政府全体在内的太多美国人都非常希望阻止这种情况发生，因为这是对他们在世界范围内主导地位的挑战。

In October of 2013, Qiushi published one of the most excellent and intelligent articles I have ever read on the subject of democracy and multi-party politics. I do not know the name of the author, but he is a professor at Fudan University in Shanghai, in the School of International Relations and Public Affairs. He wrote that:

2013年10月，求是发表了我读过的关于民主和多党政治的最优秀、最聪明的文章之一。我不知道作者的名字，但他是上海复旦大学国际关系与公共事务学院的教授。他写道：

The ‘benchmark for appraising democracy‘ is determined entirely by a small handful of countries who had “a contingent of campaigners paid by various foundations to go around the world delivering speeches and selling the case for democracy. Thus, democracy, together with the social sciences founded on its basis, is more like a propaganda tool employed by the West than anything else, and the resulting knowledge bubble is far from small. Under the Western-style appraisal mechanisms of democracy, there is only one precondition that needs to be met for a developing country to be considered a “democracy”, or to “graduate” from the class of authoritarian countries: that country must show obedience to Western countries, and must give up its independent foreign and domestic policies. Any country that does so is immediately rewarded with “international” praise”.

评估民主的基准”完全由少数几个曾经“一支由各种基金会资助的活动人士队伍在世界各地发表演讲，推销民主的主张。因此，民主和建立在民主基础上的社会科学，更像是西方使用的宣传工具，由此产生的知识泡沫远远不小。在西方式的民主评价机制下只有一个先决条件需要满足，发展中国家才能被视为“民主国家”，或从威权国家的阶级中“毕业”：该国必须服从西方国家，必须放弃独立的外交和国内政策。任何这样做的国家都会立即得到“国际”的赞扬。

He also cautioned Chinese, as I strongly do myself, to stop apologising for China’s system of government because it is in fact one of the best in the world. And the Americans don’t have to like it.

他还警告中国人，就像我自己强烈建议的那样，不要再为中国的政府体制道歉了，因为它实际上是世界上最好的体制之一。美国人也不必喜欢它。

The Americans fill their media with articles on China’s government system, often posing disingenuous but supposedly-thoughtful questions like “What will democracy add to China’s efficiency?” This is clever propaganda since the question stakes out in advance the position that a multi-party system is naturally superior and more efficient, thereby framing our discussion and limiting it to a useless opinion-based debate. The simple truth, available to anyone who looks, is that China’s one-party system is almost infinitely more efficient and responsive than any Western model, and even a partial attempt to emulate the Western system, especially the American one, would automatically restrict further progress in China, and would likely work to eliminate the gains already made. To my mind, the most serious mistake the Chinese people can make is to attribute even a shred of credibility to claims of superiority or benefit in a multi-party political system. Rather than feelings of inferiority, the Chinese should be taking pride in their country’s political framework and stop apologising for its grand success.

美国人在媒体上发表关于中国政府体制的文章，经常提出一些不真诚但理应深思熟虑的问题，比如“民主会给中国的效率带来什么？”这是一种巧妙的宣传，因为这个问题预先表明了多党制度天生优越、效率更高的立场，从而形成了我们的讨论框架，并将其局限于一场毫无意义的基于观点的辩论。任何人都能看到一个简单的事实，那就是中国的一党制几乎比任何西方模式都要高效、反应迅速得多，即使只是部分模仿西方体制，尤其是美国体制，也会自动限制中国的进一步进步，并可能会消除已经取得的成果。在我看来，中国人民可能犯的最严重的错误是，把哪怕是一点点信誉都归咎于在多党政治体制中声称优越或利益的说法。中国人不应该自卑，而应该为自己国家的政治框架感到自豪，停止为自己的巨大成功道歉。

Again, we need only look at the results to realise the truth of this. No nation in the history of the world has achieved China’s stunning level of progress and development, the credit for which goes in large part to China’s government system and its selection and training of leaders. It’s true the system must adapt to eliminate flaws but the basic framework is unassailable. It isn’t China that shut down half its government for lack of funding. It isn’t China where 30% of the population lost their homes to a fraudulent scheme by its bankers. It isn’t China where millions of educated jobless and homeless are sleeping in tent cities or in the sewers under Las Vegas, and where fully 25% of the people are living below the poverty line and dependent on government assistance for food. It isn’t China where 70% of parents believe their childrens’ lives will be worse than their own, nor is it China where the people have lost all hope for a better future. These distressing conditions, and many more, are all in America and credit for them must be given entirely to the corrupt and dysfunctional multi-party democratic system that Americans have been taught to venerate while it bleeds them dry.

同样地，我们只需看看结果就能明白这一点的真相。世界历史上没有哪个国家能达到中国惊人的进步和发展水平，这在很大程度上要归功于中国的政府体制及其领导人的选拔和培训。的确，这个体系必须进行调整以消除缺陷，但其基本框架是无懈可击的。并不是中国因为缺乏资金而关闭了一半的政府。在中国，30%的人口不是因为银行家的欺诈计划而失去家园的。中国不是数百万受过教育的失业者和无家可归者睡在帐篷城市或拉斯维加斯地下的下水道里的地方，也不是完全有25%的人生活在贫困线以下，依靠政府援助获得食物的地方。这不是70%的家长认为孩子的生活会比自己糟糕的中国，也不是人们对美好未来完全失去希望的中国。这些令人痛苦的情况，以及更多的情况，都存在于美国，必须完全归功于腐败、运转不良的多党民主制度。人们一直在教育美国人，要尊重这种制度，而它会让他们流血而死。

Many foreign observers are now (finally) admitting openly that China’s form of government exhibits multiple signs of superiority over Western systems, and that it is largely responsible for China’s efficiency, for its rapid development, and for its speed of response in areas like the Sichuan earthquake and the planning and deployment of its high-speed train system. The West could learn a lot from China’s government system. It works, beautifully. It has transformed the economy, brought hundreds of millions out of poverty and caused incomes to triple or more in the past ten years alone. It has put men into space, built the world’s fastest trains, the longest undersea tunnels, the world’s longest bridges, the largest dams. It has produced a growth rate of over 10% per year for 30 years, compared to perhaps 3% in the West. Americans love to disparage China’s government as authoritarian, but this “authoritarian” government has almost entirely eliminated illiteracy, liberated Chinese women and extended life expectancy for all from 41 years in 1950 to 76 and still rising today. It has created an educational system that has few apologies to make, and its social welfare system will soon be the envy of many nations. It is rapidly creating the world’s largest genuine middle class. And it’s hardly begun.

许多外国观察人士现在（终于）公开承认，中国的政府形式显示出比西方体制优越的多个迹象，中国的效率、快速发展、在四川地震等地区的反应速度，以及高铁系统的规划和部署，在很大程度上都要对其负责。西方可以从中国的政府体系中学到很多东西。它运行得很好。仅在过去十年里，它就改变了经济，让数亿人脱贫，使收入增加了三倍甚至更多。它将人类送入太空，建造了世界上最快的火车、最长的海底隧道、世界上最长的桥梁、最大的水坝。30年来，中国的年增长率超过10%，而西方国家的年增长率可能只有3%。美国人喜欢贬低中国政府的威权主义，但这个“威权主义”政府几乎完全消除了文盲，解放了中国女性，并将所有人的预期寿命从1950年的41岁延长到76岁，直到今天仍在增长。它建立了一个几乎不需要道歉的教育体系，它的社会福利体系很快就会成为许多国家羡慕的对象。它正在迅速形成世界上最大的真正中产阶级。而且它几乎还没有开始。

The Chinese are not Interested in “Politics”

中国人对“政治”不感兴趣

In any Western country, political discussions often become emotionally-heated rather quickly, since most everyone has an opinion and many hold those opinions very strongly. The only surprise is that the violent emotions don’t lead more often to physical violence. However, since China hasn’t politics but only government, the discussions are normally muted. Not everyone has an opinion, few of those opinions inspire emotion, and debates are most often rational. Moreover, these debates seldom occur, since few people in any population are sufficiently knowledgeable to intelligently discuss the operations of a national government. And even fewer are interested, unless the government appears to be functioning badly. Most people in China will freely confess that they lack the knowledge of government, primarily because it is outside their field of study and employment, and they have no illusions about their ability to affect their national or local governments in a positive way. They “participate” only if something actually goes wrong. And, sometimes things, at least at the local level, do go wrong, and then the “participation” is quite loud. And, in each such case, if the local authorities fail to act quickly, the national government will step in and force a rectification. In China, “mistakes” by a government are seldom allowed to persist, and they often have prison sentences attached to them.

在任何一个西方国家，政治讨论往往会很快在情绪上变得激烈起来，因为大多数人都有自己的观点，而且很多人都非常坚定地持有这些观点。唯一让人惊讶的是，暴力情绪并没有更多地导致身体暴力。然而，由于中国没有政治，只有政府，讨论通常是沉默的。并不是每个人都有自己的观点，这些观点很少能激发情感，辩论往往是理性的。此外，这些辩论很少发生，因为在所有人口中，几乎没有人有足够的知识来明智地讨论一个国家政府的运作。对此感兴趣的人就更少了，除非政府似乎运转不良。大多数中国人会坦承自己缺乏政府知识，主要是因为政府不在自己的学习和就业领域之内，他们对自己以积极的方式影响国家或地方政府的能力没有幻想。只有在出现实际问题时，他们才会“参与”。而且，有时候事情的确出了问题，至少在地方层面是这样，然后“参与”的声音就相当大了。而且，在每一种情况下，如果地方当局不能迅速采取行动，国家政府将介入并强制整改。在中国，政府的“错误”很少被允许继续存在，而且往往会被判入狱。

It is always a shock to Westerners, especially Americans, that some countries don’t permit ‘the people’ to meddle in government unless they have serious credentials and know what they’re doing. In a recent NYT article, it was reflected that Chinese typically believe that peasants (small-town Americans) “are too unschooled to intelligently select the nation’s leaders“. I don’t see how we can avoid the conclusion that they have it right.

一些国家不允许“人民”干预政府，除非他们有严肃的资历，知道自己在做什么，这总是让西方人，尤其是美国人感到震惊。《纽约时报》最近的一篇文章反映出，中国人通常认为农民（小城镇美国人）“没有受过教育，无法明智地选择国家领导人”。我看不出我们怎么能避免得出他们说得对的结论。

Few educated Chinese see the Western multi-party democratic model as particularly appealing because they don’t equate politics with government – as Westerners do – nor do they see sanity in the selection of national leaders as a team sport. The Chinese see the West as having a system where anyone, even a person with no education, training, knowledge, experience, ability – or even intelligence – can rise to become the President or Prime Minister, and where high government office requires no credentials other than popularity. They look on this with an interesting mixture of disbelief and disdain. They are also aware that a multi-party system requires the forcible division of a society into ideologically different groups with violently opposing interests. China has made no such social divisions, and the culture would mitigate against them since they would of necessity lead to conflict and biased ideological agendas, disregarding the good of the country as a whole. Divisions of this kind are anathema to the Chinese, as they should be to us Westerners. As I’ve noted elsewhere, the number of Chinese citizens interested in the US-style of multi-party democracy is about the same as the number of Americans interested in communism.

很少有受过教育的中国人认为西方的多党民主模式特别有吸引力，因为他们不像西方人那样把政治等同于政府，也不认为挑选国家领导人是一项团队运动是明智之举。中国人认为西方有这样一种体制，任何人，即使是没有受过教育、培训、没有知识、经验、没有能力甚至没有智力的人，都可以升任总统或总理，而且担任政府要职只需要受欢迎就可以了。他们带着一种有趣的怀疑和鄙视的混合态度看待这件事。他们还意识到，多党制要求将一个社会强行划分为意识形态不同的群体，这些群体有着激烈对立的利益。中国没有这样的社会分歧，文化也会减轻这种分歧，因为它们必然会导致冲突和有偏见的意识形态议程，无视国家整体的利益。这种分歧对中国人来说是深恶痛绝的，对我们西方人来说也是如此。正如我在其他地方指出的那样，对美国式多党民主感兴趣的中国公民人数与对共产主义感兴趣的美国人人数大致相同。

By contrast, Westerners often observe that the Chinese are apolitical or even apathetic, having no interest in politics. This is true, but it reflects a fundamental ignorance since China neither has nor wants “politics“, and treats government as “government“. The Chinese see government as an occupation, a career like any other. They do not view government through the chromatic and otherwise distorted political team-sport lens as Westerners do. Some people in every country may be attracted or tempted by the prospect of a powerful position in government or industry, but this tends to be a small minority. Most Chinese, as probably most people in every country, want stability and a chance to improve their lives. So long as the government is able to create an environment that offers hope and a stable platform for improvement, they have little interest in the functioning of the government and are happy to leave it to those who are in charge.

相比之下，西方人经常观察到中国人对政治漠不关心甚至漠不关心，对政治没有兴趣。这是事实，但它反映了一种根本的无知，因为中国既没有也不想“政治”，把政府当作“政府”对待。中国人把政府视为一种职业，一种和其他职业一样的职业。他们不像西方人那样，用色彩斑斓或扭曲的政治团队运动视角看待政府。每个国家的一些人可能都会被在政府或行业中获得强大地位的前景所吸引或诱惑，但这往往是少数人。大多数中国人，可能和每个国家的大多数人一样，希望稳定和改善生活的机会。只要政府能够创造一个带来希望的环境和一个稳定的改善平台，他们就对政府的运作几乎不感兴趣，愿意把它留给负责人。

Not Many Chinese are Interested in Government, Either

也没有多少中国人对政府感兴趣

The Chinese people have a much more mature and realistic attitude toward government than do people in the West, in that they look at government as government, not through the primitive psychological mask of party politics. And when they look at government, they do not delude themselves into believing that running a country is as simple as ordinary Western people think it is. They are aware that a government position necessarily means the assumption of great responsibility. They know it requires a high level of expertise to understand and deal with issues of social policy, population, international trade and finance, the national and international economy, the nation’s industrial policy, foreign policy, military matters, border disputes, friction with US imperialism, and dozens more major and serious topics. And, in the end, most Chinese don’t feel they have the knowledge or experience to affect the course of their country in any positive way – and of course they are correct. They recognise that their government officials have committed their lives to education and training, to acquire the knowledge and skills to manage and lead a country and a society, and they are justifiably aware of their own personal shortcomings. In China, a government career is a commitment requiring one’s full participation, but those not in the professional fields of national governance are not encouraged to do so because they are likely to be uninformed. We cannot argue that this is wrong, and it does seem a more intelligent and realistic way of thinking about government.

中国人对政府的态度比西方人成熟得多、现实得多，因为他们把政府视为政府，而不是通过政党政治的原始心理面具。当他们审视政府时，他们不会自欺欺人地认为治理一个国家就像普通西方人认为的那样简单。他们知道，政府的立场必然意味着承担重大责任。他们知道，要理解和处理社会政策、人口、国际贸易和金融、国家和国际经济、国家产业政策、外交政策、军事事务、边境争端、与美帝国主义的摩擦等几十个重大而严肃的议题，需要高水平的专业知识。最后，大多数中国人觉得自己没有以任何积极的方式影响国家进程的知识或经验——他们当然是对的。他们认识到自己的政府官员毕生致力于教育和培训，获得管理和领导一个国家和社会的知识和技能，他们有理由意识到自己的个人缺点。在中国，从政是一项需要充分参与的承诺，但不鼓励那些不在国家治理专业领域的人这样做，因为他们可能不知情。我们不能说这是错误的，它的确似乎是一种更明智、更现实的政府思维方式。

Foreign Resentment of China’s One-Party Government

外国对中国一党政府的不满

The reason the Americans and the European Jewish mafia hate China’s one-party system is not because it’s a bad system, but because it cannot be controlled by external forces. China’s one-party system is a perfect form of government, as is obvious by the results it has produced, but the Americans and the Jews cannot get their fingers into it. If China has no political parties and no public elections, how can I buy the candidates? And if I cannot buy the candidates, how can I control the government?

美国人和欧洲犹太黑手党憎恨中国的一党制，不是因为它是一个糟糕的制度，而是因为它不能被外部势力控制。中国的一党制是一种完美的政府形式，其产生的结果显而易见，但美国人和犹太人无法参与其中。如果中国没有政党，没有公开选举，我怎么能收买候选人呢？如果我买不到候选人，我怎么能控制政府呢？

These people are willing to spend huge sums of money to buy control of China’s government and then have the power to influence all its policies, to initiate legislation and to slowly take control of the government. But in China, I can do nothing. The selection of China’s leaders is done quietly, in private. I don’t even know how the system works, and if I don’t understand the system, I cannot manipulate it. That’s why the Americans scream so loudly about China needing more “transparency” in its leadership selection. Why should they care how China chooses its leaders? It’s none of their business. China doesn’t criticise the way Americans choose their leaders. The Americans propose their “transparency” in moral terms, as if China were committing a sin by not being more “open”, but the issue is that they need to understand how it works so they can try to figure out a way to manipulate it. The truth is that China’s one-party government is the main armor preventing the country from being destroyed by the Westerners one more time.

这些人愿意花巨资购买对中国政府的控制权，然后有权影响中国的所有政策，启动立法，并慢慢控制政府。但在中国，我无能为力。中国领导人的挑选是秘密进行的，而且是秘密进行的。我甚至不知道这个制度是如何运作的，如果我不了解这个制度，我就无法操纵它。这就是为什么美国人如此大声地叫嚣中国在领导层的选择上需要更多的“透明度”。他们为什么要关心中国如何选择领导人呢？这不关他们的事。中国不会批评美国人选择领导人的方式。美国人在道德上提出了他们的“透明度”，就好像中国没有更加“开放”是在犯罪，但问题是他们需要理解它是如何运作的，以便设法找到操纵它的方法。事实是，中国的一党政府是防止这个国家再次被西方人摧毁的主要盔甲。

The Americans, and their European banker puppet-masters, know perfectly well that China’s leaders understand their intent and will never cooperate, so the American propaganda machine turns to the Chinese people. “You need democracy. You need multi-party politics. You deserve to have ‘choices’, because selecting a President is the same as buying shampoo in a supermarket. You should be like us, with the ‘freedom’ to choose your shampoo. Trust us. Have a revolution and overthrow your government. That’s what God wants you to do.”

美国人及其欧洲银行家傀儡主人非常清楚，中国领导人理解他们的意图，永远不会合作，所以美国的宣传机器转向了中国人民。“你需要民主。你需要多党政治。你应该有‘选择’，因为选择总统就像在超市买洗发水一样。你应该像我们一样，有‘自由’选择洗发水。相信我们。发动革命，推翻你的政府。这是上帝希望你做的。

It should be noted here that the Americans, as a fundamental part of their incessant interference in China’s internal affairs, make great effort to cultivate attitudes in China that will foster and support the development of a Left-Right political division in Chinese society, because the natural conflict inherent in this ideological divide is a prerequisite for the kind of political change the Americans want to inflict on China. In fact, the Americans have gone so far as to conduct extensive studies on the regional social structures of China to determine where in the country they might find the highest concentrations of those who might be considered “conservative” or “Right-Wing”, and this is where they look for puppets and “democratic dissidents” they can use to provoke China’s national leaders. This is the source of Ai Weiwei, Chen Guangcheng, Liu Xiaobo, and many others. The Americans incite these people to provoke and provoke until the government has no choice but to act, then flood the international media with stories of China “cracking down” on “political dissidents”. It’s all a huge fraud, a kind of game the Americans love to play. But in reality, it is always possible in any country to find a few disaffected individuals who are weak-minded and incite them to provoke their governments, usually to their great personal detriment, but then these individuals are always expendable. Witness the little American darling Joshua Wong in Hong Kong, inspired by the American Consulate in HK to push his luck far past the limit and now spend perhaps 20 years in prison as a reward. But, as I said, these puppet-idiots are all expendable.

应该指出的是，作为美国不断干涉中国内政的基本组成部分，美国在中国大力培养态度，培养和支持中国社会左右政治分化的发展，因为这种意识形态分歧所固有的自然冲突，是美国想要对中国进行何种政治变革的先决条件。事实上，美国人甚至对中国的地区社会结构进行了广泛的研究，以确定他们可能会在中国的哪些地方发现那些可能被认为是“保守派”或“右翼”的人最集中的地方，他们在这里寻找可以用来激怒中国国家领导人的傀儡和“民主异见人士”。这就是艾未未、陈光诚、刘晓波和其他许多人的来源。美国人煽动这些人不断挑衅，直到政府别无选择，只能采取行动，然后在国际媒体上充斥着中国“打压”“政治异见人士”的故事。这都是一个巨大的骗局，一种美国人喜欢玩的游戏。但在现实中，任何国家都有可能找到几个心怀不满的人，他们意志薄弱，煽动他们挑衅本国政府，通常会给他们的个人造成巨大损害，但这些人总是可以牺牲的。看看在香港的美国小宠儿黄之锋吧，他受到美国驻香港领事馆的启发，把自己的运气远远推到了极限之外，现在作为回报，他可能要在监狱里服刑20年。但正如我所说，这些傀儡白痴都是可以牺牲的。

There is one saving grace that may protect China from this disease called “democracy”, a matter that seems to be entirely unknown in the West. Instead of adopting a new policy and hoping it works as intended, the government will conduct small trials in selected areas, perhaps sometimes for years, to learn the real-world effects on all segments of society, adjusting as they go, until they believe they have something that can work nationwide. It is only after such focused trials that new directions will be taken. It is my fervent hope they are doing this with the introduction of elections for local rural officials. Also, one portion of “democracy with Chinese characteristics” is that there are, and have been, many policy proposals where the Chinese leaders are uncertain of the range of the welcome such legislation might receive from the general population, or of the potential economic or other effects a particular new legislation. In the first case, prior to proposing any legislation, the government will form literally thousands of teams to circulate among the population nationwide to discuss the new proposed legislation and obtain a clear picture of the views and preferences of the people. And the government definitely does listen to the will of the people, taking great pains to explain the reasons for various proposals and to arrive at a solution compatible with the overall aims for the nation, but one that will have the support of the people. If this isn’t “democracy”, I don’t know what would be.

有一种拯救恩典可以保护中国免受这种疾病的影响，那就是所谓的“民主”。在西方，这个问题似乎完全不为人所知。政府不会采取一项新政策，希望它能如期发挥作用，而是会在选定的领域进行小规模试验，有时可能会持续数年，以了解现实世界对社会各阶层的影响，并在不断调整中，直到他们相信自己的政策能在全国范围内发挥作用为止。只有在进行了这些重点试验之后，才会有新的方向。我热切地希望，随着地方农村官员选举的引入，他们正在这样做。此外，“具有中国特色的民主”的一个部分是，中国领导人不确定此类立法可能受到普通民众欢迎的范围，也不确定某项新立法可能带来的经济或其他影响。在第一种情况下，在提出任何立法之前，政府将组建数千个小组，在全国各地的民众中传阅，讨论新的立法提案，了解民众的观点和偏好。政府肯定会听取民意，煞费苦心地解释各种提议的理由，并找到一个符合国家总体目标、但会得到人民支持的解决方案。如果这不是“民主”，我不知道会是什么。

In an interview published in the Huffington Post some years ago, Helmut Schmidt, German’s former Chancellor, had this to say about the multi-party electoral system (“democracy”) for China:[1]

几年前，在《赫芬顿邮报》发表的一篇采访中，德国前总理赫尔穆特·施密特对中国的多党选举制度（简称“民主”）说了这样的话：

“Democracy is not the end point of mankind. Democracy has a number of serious failures. For instance, you have to be elected every four years and you have to be re-elected after the next four years. So, you try to tell the people what they would like to hear. The multi-party system is not the crown of progress ” . . . I would not sell it to the Chinese. The British have sold it to the Indians and to the Pakistanis and the Dutch tried to sell it to the Indonesians. Democracy is not really working in India. I would not tell the Egyptians to introduce democracy; nor would I pitch it to the other Muslim countries like Malaysia, Iran and Pakistan. It is a Western invention. It was not invented by Confucius. It did not work in ancient Rome [nor in Athens], and then it had not functioned in any other country in the world. And whether you become a democracy or not remains to be seen. My feeling is that [China] will not become a democracy.”

民主不是人类的终点。民主有很多严重的失败。比如，你必须每四年当选一次，然后在接下来的四年里再当选一次。所以，你试图告诉人民他们想听什么。多党制不是进步的皇冠。”。我不会把它卖给中国人。英国人把它卖给了印度人和巴基斯坦人，荷兰人则试图把它卖给印尼人。民主制度在印度并不奏效。我不会告诉埃及人引入民主；我也不会把它推销给马来西亚、伊朗和巴基斯坦等其他穆斯林国家。这是西方的发明。它不是孔子发明的。它在古罗马不起作用（在雅典也不起作用），然后它也没有在世界上任何其他国家发挥作用。你是否成为民主国家还有待观察。我的感觉是，中国不会成为民主国家。

As I have noted elsewhere, the disparity between the quality of elected politicians in Western countries and the analogous officials in China’s government, especially at the national level in the Central Government, is a discrepancy so vast that comparisons are largely meaningless. Lee Kuan Yew, the founding father of Singapore, praised China’s President Xi Jinping as “a man of great breadth” and put him in “the Nelson Mandela class of persons”, saying “that man has iron in his soul”, and Xi has been widely praised (except in the US) as a man who “will become the first truly global leader”. These are not compliments we see being paid to Western politicians. Why would China want to change?

正如我在其他地方指出的那样，西方国家民选政客的素质与中国政府类似官员的素质之间存在巨大差异，尤其是在中央政府的国家层面上，这种差异如此之大，以至于进行比较在很大程度上毫无意义。这些都不是我们看到的对西方政客的赞美。中国为什么要改变呢？

The Compradors

买办

Still, the American interference project is very active in China today, the US government spending (by its own admission) more than $300 million each year inside China, searching for and coaching ‘dissidents’ and ‘democracy activists’ as well as other yuppie compradors wanting to ‘restructure’ China’s government to permit more foreign control.

尽管如此，美国的干预计划如今在中国非常活跃，美国政府每年在中国国内支出超过3亿美元（据其自己承认），用于寻找和辅导“异见人士”和“民主活动人士”，以及其他想要“重组”中国政府、允许更多外国控制的雅皮士买办。

I have often discussed various topics related to government, politics, the West, with groups of people in China – mostly young professionals, all university graduates, and have been frequently surprised at the attitudes of some who have been strongly influenced by foreign sources. The attitudes expressed, and even the words and phrases used, were too similar, almost verbatim, appearing to have come from some American source that was listing all the advantages of US-style “democracy”. I heard many comments like “China needs two political parties”, or “The West is so rich because it has democracy and a superior education system.” And so many others, cut from the same cloth, all idealised and false American propaganda, baseless and uninformed, riddled with American moral superiority and battered with a list of China’s comparative failings.

我经常与中国的一些人讨论与政府、政治、西方有关的各种话题——大多是年轻的专业人士，都是大学毕业生。我经常对一些受到外国消息来源强烈影响的人的态度感到惊讶。表达的态度，甚至使用的词汇和短语都太过相似，几乎一字不差，似乎来自某个美国来源，该来源列出了美国式“民主”的所有优势。我听到过很多这样的评论，比如“中国需要两个政党”，或者“西方之所以如此富裕，是因为它有民主和优越的教育体系”，还有很多其他的评论，都是一模一样的，都是美国的理想主义和虚假宣传，毫无根据和信息，充斥着美国的道德优越感，还被一系列中国的相对失败所折磨。

But when I explained, for example, that the West was rich primarily due to colonialism, to extermination of populations and looting of resources, these people were speechless. None appeared to have any idea that the US was encircling China with propaganda, with military, trying to infiltrate and collapse both China’s government and economy. None understood that the form of China’s government made it closed to foreign interference, which was primarily the reason the US wants China to open up and adopt multiple political parties. Most people to whom I spoke were naive, innocent, and dangerously unaware of the political forces surrounding them. These people were spellbound as I outlined many of these issues; they simply had no idea.

但当我解释西方之所以富裕主要是因为殖民主义、人口灭绝和资源掠夺时，这些人说不出话来。似乎没有人知道美国正在用宣传和军事包围中国，试图渗透和瓦解中国政府和经济。没有人明白，中国政府的形式使其不受外国干涉，这主要是美国希望中国开放和接纳多个政党的原因。与我交谈的大多数人都天真无邪，危险地不知道他们周围的政治力量。当我概述其中许多问题时，这些人被迷住了；他们完全不知道。

I fully concur with James Petras’ observation that “These Chinese yuppies imitate the worst of Western consumerist life styles and their political outlooks are driven by these life styles and Westernized identities which preclude any sense of solidarity with their own working class.” Many of these people are now embedded in China’s economic or other systems and are in position to do real harm. Many of them, especially ‘dissidents’ or ‘activists’ are supported and financed by American NGOs, but in their ignorance, they perceive no threat. To the extent that these people gain influence, they distract and weaken China, just as their traitorous counterparts did 150 years ago by effectively being intermediaries for their own colonisers.” As Petras again pointed out, the entire last crop of these Chinese collaborators were totally discredited before the Chinese people, and the same needs to happen again today.

我完全同意詹姆斯·彼得拉斯的观点，即“这些中国雅皮士模仿了西方最糟糕的消费主义生活方式，他们的政治观是由这些生活方式和西方化身份所驱动的，这些身份排除了与自己的工人阶级的任何团结感”。这些人中的许多人现在已经融入了中国的经济体系或其他体系，有可能造成真正的伤害。他们中的许多人，尤其是“异见人士”或“活动人士”，得到了美国非政府组织的支持和资助，但由于无知，他们认为没有威胁。在一定程度上，这些人获得了影响力，他们分散了中国的注意力，削弱了中国的力量，就像150年前那些叛国者那样，他们实际上是自己殖民者的中间人。“正如彼得拉斯再次指出的那样，这些中国合作者的最后一批人在中国人民面前完全丧失了信誉，今天也需要这样做。

President Xi has warned of the necessity to eradicate “subversive currents coursing through Chinese society”, as well as the dangers of American-financed NGOs in China, quoting a government document stating that “Western forces hostile to China and dissidents within the country are still constantly infiltrating the ideological sphere” and have “stirred up trouble” in many sensitive areas. I couldn’t agree more.

习近平主席警告说，有必要消除“中国社会的颠覆潮流”，以及美国资助的非政府组织在中国的危险性。他援引一份政府文件的话说，“敌视中国的西方势力和中国国内的异见人士仍在不断渗透意识形态领域”，并在许多敏感领域“挑起事端”。我完全同意。

Mr. Romanoff’s writing has been translated into 32 languages and his articles posted on more than 150 foreign-language news and politics websites in more than 30 countries, as well as more than 100 English language platforms. Larry Romanoff is a retired management consultant and businessman. He has held senior executive positions in international consulting firms, and owned an international import-export business. He has been a visiting professor at Shanghai’s Fudan University, presenting case studies in international affairs to senior EMBA classes. Mr. Romanoff lives in Shanghai and is currently writing a series of ten books generally related to China and the West. He is one of the contributing authors to Cynthia McKinney’s new anthology ‘When China Sneezes’. (Chapt. 2 — Dealing with Demons).

罗曼诺夫的著作已被翻译成32种语言，他的文章发表在30多个国家的150多个外语新闻和政治网站上，以及100多个英语平台上。拉里·罗曼诺夫是一名退休的管理顾问和商人。他曾在国际咨询公司担任高级管理职位，并拥有国际进出口业务。他曾在上海复旦大学担任客座教授，向EMBA高级班讲授国际事务方面的案例研究。罗曼诺夫住在上海，目前正在撰写一系列十本书，这些书通常与中国和西方有关。他是辛西娅·麦金尼的新集《当中国打喷嚏的时候》的撰稿人之一。（第二章——对付恶魔）。

His full archive can be seen at

他的完整文章库可在以下找到

https://www.bluemoonofshanghai.com/ + https://www.moonofshanghai.com/

He can be contacted at:

联系方式如下：

2186604556@qq.com

Notes

注释

[1] Helmut Schmidt: ‘I Would Not Sell Democracy To The Chinese’

[1] 赫尔穆特·施密特：我不会把民主卖给中国人

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/01/china-democracy_n_5067120.html

CN — LARRY ROMANOFF: 民主，最危险的宗教 — 第八部分——中国的民主实验

Featured

Luisa Vasconcellos

April 6, 2023

Democracy, The Most Dangerous Religion

民主，最危险的宗教

Part 8 – China’s Democracy Experiments

第八部分——中国的民主实验

By Larry Romanoff, November 09, 2022

到2022年11月9日拉里·罗曼诺夫

译者：珍珠

CHINESE ENGLISH

I have written earlier that the multi-party electoral system (“democracy”) is the only form of government designed to be controlled by outsiders, naturally leaving it open to corruption and fraud. The Chinese, listening to the Americans, discovered all the proof of this in their own back yard. China has experimented with small-scale introductions of Western-style democratic elections for local officials in rural areas.

我早些时候曾写道，多党选举制度（简称“民主”）是唯一一种被设计成由外部控制的政府形式，自然会导致腐败和欺诈。中国人听了美国人的话，在自己的后院里找到了这方面的所有证据。中国已经尝试过在农村地区小规模地引入西式的地方官员民主选举。

We are often told that “first impressions” are the most important, that on initially meeting a person or entering a new situation, we see it most clearly at that first introduction. With the passage of time, our perceptions become clouded and dimmed by extraneous factors and our focus scattered by irrelevancies. On the introduction of “democracy” to the Chinese, they saw it very clearly as it really was – a system for obtaining political power that was just begging to be manipulated. In fact, it was seen as the very purpose of such a system and to have been designed precisely for such a purpose. And it was.

我们经常被告知，“第一印象”是最重要的，在初次见到一个人或进入一个新环境时，我们在第一次介绍时就看得最清楚。随着时间的推移，我们的感知因无关因素而变得模糊和模糊，我们的注意力被无关紧要的事情分散开来。在向中国人介绍“民主”时，他们非常清楚地看到了它的本来面目——一种获取政治权力的制度，只是乞求被操纵。事实上，它被视为这样一个系统的真正目的，而且正是为了这样一个目的而设计的。的确如此。

In early 2014, in Changsha, China’s nursery of democracy and many other imaginative crimes, there was a massive vote-buying scandal where almost 60 individuals were charged for electoral fraud, dereliction of duty, disrupting elections, buying votes, bribery and related corruption, involving more than 500 lawmakers and various local party officials who were disqualified and relieved of their posts, their crimes involving many thousands of citizens and more than 100 million yuan in bribes. And this was only one case of many.

2014年初，在中国的民主苗圃长沙和其他许多想象中的犯罪发生了一起大规模的买票丑闻，近60人被指控犯有选举舞弊、渎职、扰乱选举、买票、贿赂和相关腐败罪，涉及500多名被取消资格、解除职务的议员和地方党委官员，涉及数千名公民，受贿逾1亿元人民币。这只是众多案例中的一例。

In North China’s Hebei province, one town had two failed elections within a month, corrupted by vote-buying with twice as many votes as eligible voters, stolen ballot boxes and much other electoral fraud. Many towns and villages introduced multi-party elections in the late 1980s, with many experiencing similar problems. In September of 2016, there was a massive election-Rigging Scandal in Liaoning, with more than 500 people paying bribes to get friends elected. China’s National People’s Congress expelled 45 lawmakers, nearly half the number elected from Liaoning, because of bribery and election fraud. In addition, more than 500 lawmakers were dismissed or resigned from the 619-member Liaoning People’s Congress, and several people were arrested.

在中国北方的河北省，有一个镇在一个月内举行了两次选举失败，其中包括以两倍于合格选民的票数收买选票、窃取选票箱和其他许多选举舞弊行为。许多城镇和村庄在20世纪80年代末开始进行多党选举，许多都遇到了类似的问题。2016年9月，辽宁发生了一起大规模的选举舞弊丑闻，500多人通过行贿让朋友当选。中国全国人民代表大会以贿赂和选举舞弊为由开除了45名议员，几乎是辽宁省当选议员人数的一半。此外，有619名成员的辽宁省人大有500多名议员被罢免或辞职，另有几人被捕。

I was surprised that anyone was surprised. That’s democracy. That’s how it works. It was designed to be wide open to corruption. In the West, we have more experience so we do it more quietly and in different ways, but the result is the same. Wherever money can buy legislative power, all open systems will become corrupted.

我感到惊讶的是，竟然有人感到惊讶。这就是民主。这就是它的工作原理。它的设计初衷是向腐败敞开大门。在西方，我们有更多的经验，所以我们用不同的方式更安静地做这件事，但结果是一样的。只要金钱能买到立法权，所有开放的体系都会腐败。

The Chinese saw “democracy” as it really was – a way to obtain control of a government by collecting votes. The easiest way to collect votes is to buy them, and there isn’t even any morality here. Before moralising about the Chinese, consider that if it’s okay for AIPAC and corporations to buy politicians, why isn’t it okay for politicians to buy voters? The next easiest way (if you’re willing to be a bit dishonest) is to print excess ballots and stuff the ballot boxes. And let’s not forget that stuffing ballot boxes was a tradition in the US and Canada 200 years ago.

中国人看到了“民主”的本来面目——一种通过收集选票来控制政府的方式。收集选票最简单的方式就是买票，这里甚至没有任何道德可言。在对中国人说教之前，先想想，如果AIPAC和企业可以收买政客，那么政客为什么不能收买选民呢？第二个最简单的方法是打印多余的选票，然后塞满投票箱。我们不要忘记，200年前，在美国和加拿大，塞满选票箱是一项传统。

But again, with this “new” political system, we are being offered full control of the government of a city, by the simple expedient of having people vote for us. There is no other requirement, and anyone can do it. It’s obvious that someone with money and ambition will rise to this challenge and find a way, honest or otherwise, to get those votes.

不过，有了这种“新”的政治体制，我们可以完全控制一座城市的政府，只是为了让人们投票支持我们。没有其他要求，任何人都能做到。很明显，有钱、有抱负的人会勇敢地迎接这一挑战，找到一种方法，不管诚实与否，获得这些选票。

These are serious issues in China because increasingly the king-makers in the background will be foreigners. Jews, US Consulate staff, members of the US State Department, Embassy officials who are CIA but disguised as diplomats, the NED, USAID, AmCham and dozens of American NGOs, are all spending money and working in the background to influence government in China. That’s the truth, and if it’s apparent to me it should be obvious to many others. Their success in Hong Kong is stunning; the Americans have obtained enormous influence on the political landscape in Hong Kong and are so clever and experienced that the hundreds of thousands of little Hong Kong puppets cannot even see the strings. And they have every intention of doing the same in Mainland China.

这些在中国都是严重的问题，因为越来越多的幕后主使将是外国人。犹太人、美国领事馆工作人员、美国国务院成员、伪装成外交官的CIA大使馆官员、NED、美国国际开发署、美国商会和数十家美国非政府组织都在花钱，在幕后工作，以影响中国政府。这是事实，如果对我来说是显而易见的，那么对其他许多人来说应该是显而易见的。他们在香港的成功令人震惊；美国人对香港的政治格局产生了巨大的影响，他们非常聪明、经验丰富，以至于数十万香港小傀儡甚至看不到其中的线索。他们完全有在中国大陆这样做的意图。

Kindergarten Democracy

幼儿园民主

But these examples were nothing compared to what happened at the Chunhui Primary School in Zhengzhou, where 1,700 small children learned lessons about “democracy” that they will unfortunately never forget. These students used to have a “backward, old-fashioned, traditional, Chinese-style” system of choosing student leaders where the selection was based on silly things like scholastic merit and the recommendations of teachers as to character. But, thanks to American pressure, they “altered their tradition” and instead turned to modern, Western-style “democracy”.

但与郑州春晖小学的情况相比，这些例子算不上什么。在那里，1700名小学生学到了他们永远不会忘记的有关“民主”的课程。这些学生过去有一个“落后的、老式的、传统的、中国式的”学生领袖选拔制度，选拔的依据是愚蠢的事情，比如学业成绩和老师对性格的建议。但是，由于美国的压力，他们“改变了传统”，转而转向现代的西方式的“民主”。

And how did that work? Well, one student (with a very poor academic record) was chosen as a leader because he was “good at basketball” and was “friendly”. And how did they get themselves elected? Well, they learned to conduct democratic election campaigns, just like all Westerners. According to media reports, “Some played the saxophone, some danced, and some showed off their calligraphy or painting skills, played traditional Chinese musical instruments as a way of impressing voters.” One mother was so eager to make her little kid a king that she printed more than 1,000 pretty little blue election cards with his name, asking everyone to vote for him.

这是怎么回事呢？一名学生（学习成绩很差）被选为领导，因为他“擅长篮球”，而且“友好”。他们是如何当选的呢？他们学会了进行民主竞选，就像所有西方人一样。据媒体报道，“一些人会演奏萨克斯管，一些人会跳舞，一些人会展示自己的书法或绘画技巧，会演奏中国传统乐器，以此给选民留下深刻印象”一位母亲非常渴望让自己的孩子成为国王，以至于她印了1000多张印有他的名字的漂亮的蓝色小选举卡，要求所有人都投他的票。

The Headmaster of the school, Hu Jianling, said the program aimed to encourage students to “bravely express their ideas” and to “participate in the school’s management”. In the opinion of the school, these student leaders proved Hu’s plan “effective and perhaps even beneficial”.

该校校长胡建灵说，该项目旨在鼓励学生“勇敢地表达自己的想法”，以及“参与学校的管理”。学校认为，这些学生领袖证明了胡锦涛的计划“有效，甚至可能有益”。

Let’s examine what really happened here. I have no wish to embarrass Mr. Hu, who I am sure is a fine gentleman with good intentions, but what kind of devil possessed this man that he thought it was a good idea to get 1,700 10-year-old kids to “bravely participate in the school’s management”? What the hell does he think a school is? In this one experiment in this one school, we can see all the pathetic flaws of Western democracy, flaws apparently invisible to the teachers, the parents and especially to the students who have learned a corrupt lesson in living that they will probably never forget. If you want to corrupt the population, it is always best to begin with the children, because that will make the corruption permanent.

让我们看看这里到底发生了什么。我不想让胡先生难堪，我相信他是一个善良的绅士，有着良好的意图，但是什么样的魔鬼控制了这个人，他认为让1700名10岁的孩子“勇敢地参与学校的管理”是个好主意？他到底认为学校是什么？在这所学校的一次实验中，我们可以看到西方民主制度的所有可悲缺陷，这些缺陷显然是老师、家长看不见的，尤其是那些在生活中吸取了他们可能永远不会忘记的腐败教训的学生。如果你想腐败民众，最好从孩子开始，因为这会让腐败永久化。

First, what was the purpose of these elections? It should be to select the most competent person for a job that carries responsibilities to the students, but nowhere in any of this little kindergarten travesty was there even a mention of competency or responsibility. None. These little politicians just wanted to be elected because they wanted to be elected, not because they had any ability or wanted to accomplish anything useful for their schoolmates. There were no students who campaigned to eliminate excessive homework or to have cleaner washrooms or more after-school tutoring. They just wanted to be leaders and to have the accompanying power and prestige, with not a thought to any obligation involved.

首先，这些选举的目的是什么？它应该是挑选最有能力的人来做一份对学生负有责任的工作，但在任何一次幼稚园的小讽刺中，都没有提到能力或责任。没有。这些小政客之所以想当选，只是因为他们想当选，而不是因为他们有任何能力或想完成任何对同学有用的事情。没有学生发起运动，要求取消过多的家庭作业、让卫生间更干净、或让课外辅导更多。他们只想成为领导者，拥有随之而来的权力和威望，而不考虑任何义务。

Even worse, how did these little politicians campaign? How did they conduct themselves to convince their electorate to vote for them? Well, they “leveraged their personal popularity”” from good looks or sports ability, or their father’s money for buying pretty dresses and nice bicycles. They “leveraged their entertainment ability” by playing the saxophone or other instruments. They “leveraged their painting and calligraphy skills”, and they no doubt found many inventive 10-year-old ways to run around the school begging for votes. How wonderful. The mother who paid to print the cute little blue cards for her kid to pass out will next time have a 5-yuan note attached to them. Those little kids learned that the only real qualification for becoming a leader and taking power is a talent for psychological manipulation, that credentials are ignored in obtaining votes.

更糟糕的是，这些小政客是如何竞选的呢？他们是如何说服选民投票支持他们的呢？好，他们通过长相、运动能力，或父亲买漂亮衣服和漂亮自行车的钱来“利用自己的人气”。他们通过演奏萨克斯管或其他乐器来“利用自己的娱乐能力”。他们“利用自己的绘画和书法技能”毫无疑问，他们找到了许多10年前就有创意的方式，在学校里四处跑来跑去乞讨选票。太棒了。付钱给孩子打印可爱的蓝色小卡片让她下一次发出去的母亲会在卡片上附上一张5元的钞票。这些孩子明白了，成为领导者和掌权的唯一真正资格是心理操纵的天赋，在获得选票时，资历被忽略了。

Are these the primary ingredients of a good leader? Is this how China chooses its General Secretary and Politburo members? Do they sit in Tiananmen Square and play a saxophone or a guitar, or paint caricature portraits of tourists? This is how the Americans select their leaders, but why teach this to Chinese children as an ideal?

这些是优秀领导者的主要组成部分吗？这就是中国选择总书记和政治局委员的方式吗？他们会坐在天安门广场演奏萨克斯管或吉他，还是画游客的漫画肖像？这就是美国人选择领导人的方式，但为什么要把它作为一种理想教育给中国孩子呢？

But this was only the first attempt and our little politicians had no experience on which to draw. They will do much better the next time. They will quickly learn that you can buy votes, and will begin raising small amounts of money to give out more than cute blue cards to anyone who promises to vote for them. They will learn that you can attract votes by making promises – not by keeping them, but by making them. So, they will promise to reduce homework, with no idea of how to do that and with the knowledge that they have no power to accomplish such a result in any case. But they will promise, at least to try.

但这只是第一次尝试，我们的小政客们没有可借鉴的经验。他们下次会做得更好。他们很快就会明白，你可以买到选票，并开始筹集小额资金，向任何承诺投票给他们的人发放不仅仅是可爱的蓝卡。他们会明白，你可以通过做出承诺来吸引选票——不是通过兑现承诺，而是通过兑现承诺。因此，他们会承诺减少家庭作业，但不知道该怎么做，而且知道自己无论如何都没有能力完成这样的任务。但他们会承诺，至少会尝试一下。

They will learn they have the power to grant gifts of patronage, and will promise to place popular voters on committees, with the expectation these individuals will help to sway other voters. They will promise to work for easier marking standards, better school lunches, and many other things that the smart candidates will know are fundamental issues for all students. They will learn to read the wishes of the student body and to turn those desires into votes and personal power. They will quickly learn to become real politicians. In short, they will learn to lie and manipulate.

他们将了解到自己有权提供赞助，并承诺让受欢迎的选民加入委员会，期望这些人能帮助左右其他选民。他们将承诺努力实现更容易的评分标准、更好的学校午餐，以及其他许多聪明的候选人都知道的对所有学生来说都是根本问题的事情。他们将学会解读学生群体的愿望，并将这些愿望转化为选票和个人权力。他们很快就会学会成为真正的政客。简而言之，他们将学会撒谎和操纵。

They already know that a school year is a long time and that kids have short memories; they intuitively know they won’t be held accountable for failing to deliver, and they also know there is no accountability anyway, that after they are elected, nobody can do anything to them. If there were personal responsibility, there would be no candidates.

他们已经知道，学年很长，孩子们的记忆很短；他们凭直觉知道，他们不会因为未能兑现承诺而被追究责任，他们也知道，无论如何也没有责任感，当选后，没有人能对他们做任何事情。如果有个人责任，就不会有候选人。

And it gets worse. In all segments of society, including elementary schools, there are always ‘king-makers’ lurking in the background, those who don’t want to be in the light but who prefer to sit in the shadows and pull the strings. These are the clever ones who amass the real power and who intuitively understand how to control events to their ultimate satisfaction regardless of the wishes of the greater group. These are the dangerous ones; they are too clever by half, and are naturally manipulative. Often, they have a mother who is of like mind and character, providing all the guidance necessary. The first thing they learn is that the power lies in the nominations, not in the voting.

情况变得更糟。在社会的各个领域，包括小学，总有一些“造王者”潜伏在幕后，他们不想暴露在阳光下，但更喜欢坐在阴影里操纵局势。这些人很聪明，他们积聚了真正的力量，凭直觉知道如何控制事件以达到最终的满足感，而不管更大群体的意愿如何。这些都是危险的；他们太聪明了一半，天生就有操控性。他们的母亲通常具有相似的思想和性格，提供所有必要的指导。他们学到的第一件事是，权力在于提名，而不是投票。

And now we naturally enter the field of multi-party politics where we have two or three king-makers, each with a following, each selecting a likely candidate who will be obedient and controllable, and will say, “I can make you the leader. Would you like that?” And off we go, each king-maker (and his mother) designing a platform of campaign promises guaranteed to attract naive, innocent and inexperienced little voters.

现在我们自然而然地进入了多党政治领域，有两三个造王者，每个人都有追随者，每个人都会选择一个顺从、可控的候选人，然后说，“我可以让你当领袖，你愿意吗？”然后我们就开始了，每个造王者（和他的母亲）都在设计一个竞选承诺平台，保证能吸引幼稚的人，无辜、缺乏经验的小选民。

This is where it will lead, and there is nothing the school or the teachers can do to prevent it. Why? Because the original premise, however nicely-worded, is false, flawed, and almost criminal. The purpose of this selection process should be to choose the best leaders for the school, mature, responsible little people of good character who can set an example for the other kids, who care about the welfare of their school-mates and who will genuinely use their power to improve the school’s environment. But we have discarded that objective and instead created a purposeless popularity contest that is wide open to every kind of social pressure and corruption. We are not selecting our leaders on their ability or their character or their sense of responsibility, but instead on their personal marketing ability – on their skills to influence and manipulate others to vote for them, honestly or otherwise.

这就是它将导致的后果，而学校或老师们无法阻止它。为什么呢？因为最初的前提，无论措辞多么巧妙，都是错误的、有缺陷的，几乎是犯罪的。这个选拔过程的目的应该是为学校挑选最好的领导者，成熟、负责任、性格良好的小人物，他们可以为其他孩子树立榜样，关心同学的福祉，真正利用自己的力量改善学校的环境。但我们放弃了这一目标，转而创建了一场毫无目的的人气竞赛，它对各种社会压力和腐败都是敞开大门的。我们选择领导人的依据不是他们的能力、性格或责任感，而是他们的个人营销能力——他们影响和操纵他人投票给他们的技能，不管是诚实还是不诚实。

In all of this, where is the discussion of credentials, of qualifications for a position of responsibility? Totally absent. In fact, the prior system of teacher character recommendations and scholastic excellence – in other words, credentials – which was a perfect system, was specifically abandoned so these idiotic yuppies could emulate the Americans and accommodate their foolish version of “democracy”.

在所有这一切中，关于资历、责任岗位资格的讨论在哪里？完全缺席。事实上，之前的教师品格推荐和学业优秀制度——换言之，证书制度——是一个完美的制度——被明确抛弃了，以便这些愚蠢的雅皮士能够模仿美国人，适应他们愚蠢的“民主”版本。

There is no evidence that any of these little candidates had any leadership skills, good academic records, a sound character, or indeed any understanding whatever of the needs and wishes of either the students or the teachers. None would be old enough to have any appreciation of the meaning of participating in the management of the school. None will be selected on any of the necessary attributes of a leader. Few if any will have any real qualifications for a leadership position, and none will understand the responsibility they are accepting. They are little kids.

没有证据表明这些小候选人有任何领导技能、良好的学业成绩、健全的性格，或者确实对学生或教师的需求和愿望有任何理解。没有人年龄大到能够理解参与学校管理的意义。领导者的任何必要属性都不会被选中。很少有人真正具备担任领导职位的资格，也没有人理解他们所承担的责任。他们都是小孩子。

And what of the students who vote? What will they consider in casting their votes for a student leader? The ability to play a saxophone? Mama’s pretty blue cards? Few if any will have an appreciation of their responsibility, few will know how to choose wisely, and none will have the ability to properly evaluate a (more or less) unknown person for a job whose duties they do not understand. My congratulations. Welcome to American-style politics, the one thing China was fortunate to not have.

那么投票的学生呢？他们在投票选举学生领袖时会考虑什么呢？会吹萨克斯管吗？妈妈的漂亮蓝牌吗？很少有人会意识到自己的责任，很少有人知道如何明智地做出选择，也没有人有能力正确地评估一个不知名的人是否能胜任一份他们不了解其职责的工作。祝贺你。欢迎来到美国式政治，这是中国幸运地没有的东西。

But this is precisely what China now has in its rural areas with the introduction of Western-style democratic elections for local officials. These are much more serious because the participants are adults, the decisions affect real lives, and because too often the king-makers in the background are almost all American and Jewish.

但这正是中国现在在农村地区实行的地方官员西式民主选举制度。这些问题要严重得多，因为参与者都是成年人，决策会影响现实生活，而且背景中的造王者往往几乎都是美国人和犹太人。

罗曼诺夫的作品他的文章被翻译成32种语言，发表在30多个国家的150多个外语新闻和政治网站上，以及100多个英语平台上。拉里·罗曼诺夫是一名退休的管理顾问和商人。他曾在国际咨询公司担任高级管理职位，并拥有国际进出口业务。他曾在上海复旦大学担任客座教授，向EMBA高级班讲授国际事务方面的案例研究。罗曼诺夫住在上海，目前正在撰写一系列十本书，这些书通常与中国和西方有关。他是辛西娅·麦金尼的新集《当中国打喷嚏的时候》的撰稿人之一。（第二章）。对付恶魔

His full archive can be seen at

他的完整文章库可在以下找到：

https://www.bluemoonofshanghai.com/ + https://www.moonofshanghai.com/

He can be contacted at:

联系方式如下：

2186604556@qq.com

CN — LARRY ROMANOFF: 民主，最危险的宗教 — 第三部分-选择政府领导人

Featured

Luisa Vasconcellos

April 6, 2023

民主，最危险的宗教

第三部分-选择政府领导人

By Larry Romanoff, October 29, 2022

拉里·罗曼诺夫著，2022年10月29日

译者：珍珠

CHINESE ENGLISH

One of the greatest things about the United States of America is that it is truly a land of unlimited political opportunity, a country where a man with no education, training or experience, a man bereft of both intelligence and ability, a man with a character eminently corruptible, can rise to become the President of the United States. And many do. And not only in America.

美利坚合众国最伟大的一点是，它确实是一片拥有无限政治机会的土地，在这个国家里，一个没有教育、培训或经验的人，一个既缺乏智力又缺乏能力的人，一个性格极其腐败的人，都可以升任美国总统。很多人都这么做了，而且不只是在美国。

One of the most blindingly-obvious flaws in the Western democratic model is that elected government officials require no credentials of any kind whatsoever to qualify for their positions. For this essay, I had a conversation with an HR executive at 7-11, who informed me that when filling a position as a store manager, they look for years of successful retail marketing experience and very much prefer an undergraduate university degree in all applicants. But to become the President or Prime Minister of a Western democracy, there are no prerequisites. Surely, I am not the only person who sees this as lunacy. It is a serious indictment of the democratic system that even the manager of a 7-11 must have minimum credentials of some nature, but the President of the US or the Prime Minister of Canada or any other Western democracy need have none.

西方民主模式中最明显的缺陷之一是，民选政府官员不需要任何资格证书就可以胜任自己的职位。在这篇文章中，我与一位7-11岁的人力资源主管进行了一次交谈，他告诉我，在填补一个商店经理的职位时，他们寻找的是多年成功的零售营销经验，而且在所有申请人中，他们都非常喜欢本科学历。但要成为西方民主国家的总统或总理，没有任何先决条件。当然，我不是唯一一个认为这是疯狂的人。这是对民主制度的严重控诉，即使是7-11的管理者也必须具备某种性质的最低资格，但美国总统、加拿大总理或任何其他西方民主国家都不需要这样的资格。

In a multi-party electoral system (a “democracy”) anyone can ‘try his hand’ at running the country. If he fails, the economy may suffer, millions may lose their jobs or their homes (or their lives), but he loses nothing. In no other part of life is it possible to have so much power and take on so much responsibility, with so few consequences for incompetence or bad judgment. Surely there is something very wrong here that Westerners appear unable and unwilling to face. How is it possible for us as intelligent people, to tell ourselves this is the best of all systems? On this basis alone it cannot possibly be the best of anything; all indications are that it could well be the worst.

在一个多党选举制度（“民主”制度）中，任何人都可以在治理国家上“试一试”。如果他失败了，经济可能会受到影响，数百万人可能会失去工作、家园（或生命），但他什么也没失去。在生活的其他任何地方都不可能有这么大的权力和承担这么大的责任，而对无能或糟糕的判断力几乎没有什么后果。当然，这里有一些西方人似乎无法也不愿面对的严重问题。作为聪明人，我们怎么可能告诉自己这是所有系统中最好的呢？单是在这个基础上，它不可能是最好的；所有迹象都表明，这很可能是最糟糕的情况。

There is something disturbingly perverse here, an attitude suggesting that schools, hospitals, corporations, even charities, are somehow ‘real’ things with real purposes and with potentially serious consequences if mismanaged, but that government in some perverted way is not real, but a game where participation has no requirements and gross mismanagement has no consequences. Government – the strategic managing of an entire country – is treated like some kind of team sport where inexperience and incompetence are not determining factors in obtaining a position. Doesn’t it seem to you that something is wrong with this picture? Something is indeed perversely wrong; “government” has been replaced by “politics”.

这里有一种令人不安的反常现象，这种态度表明，学校、医院、企业甚至慈善机构在某种程度上都是“真实”的东西，有着真实的目的，如果管理不善，可能会产生严重后果，但政府以某种反常的方式不是真实的，而是一个参与没有要求、严重管理不善没有后果的游戏。政府——对整个国家的战略管理——被视为某种团队运动，缺乏经验和无能不是获得职位的决定性因素。你不觉得这幅画有问题吗？有些事情确实出了反常的问题；“政府”已经被“政治”所取代。

Let’s try to make something clear: managing a country, deciding and implementing a strategic direction for a nation of tens or hundreds of millions of people, is a big job with grave responsibilities. Being the leader of such a management team is more than nothing. The Prime Minister or President of a country is responsible for the well-being of all citizens, for the economy, for the country’s foreign affairs policies and its relations with all other countries, for the military and related decisions. This person’s decisions can cost millions of lives, can improve or degrade world peace and security. The responsibilities are formidable and I’m sure we will all agree this is not a place for a child, for the ignorant, inexperienced and untrained.

让我们试着明确一点：管理一个国家，为一个拥有数千万或数亿人口的国家决定和实施一个战略方向，是一项重大任务，责任重大。成为这样一个管理团队的领导者绝不是什么事。一个国家的总理或总统负责所有公民的福祉、经济、外交政策及其与所有其他国家的关系、军事和相关决策。此人的决定可能会导致数百万人死亡，可能会改善或破坏世界和平与安全。责任是艰巨的，我相信我们都会同意，这不是一个适合孩子的地方，不适合无知、缺乏经验和未经训练的人。

To fully appreciate this fatal deficiency in the Western model of selecting government leaders, it will be easiest if we compare it to another kind of model. In spite of the anticipated avalanche of accusations of my being a shill for the Chinese government, let’s look at the way China does it. We will return to the Western model at the end.

要充分理解西方选择政府领导人的模式中的这一致命缺陷，我们可以把它与另一种模式进行比较。尽管预计会有大量人指责我是中国政府的傀儡，但让我们看看中国的做法。我们最终会回到西方模式。

Selecting China’s Government Leaders

中国领导人的选举

A Bit of Background

一些背景

Many Westerners have at least a dim awareness of China’s Gaokao, the system of annual university entrance examinations, taken by about 10 million students each year. This set of examinations is quite stiff and perhaps even harsh, covering many subjects and occupying three days. The tests require broad understanding, deep knowledge and high intelligence, if one is to do well. These examinations are entirely merit-based and favoritism is impossible. Students who produce the highest grades in these examinations are in the top 1% of a pool of 1.5 billion people. Obtaining a high mark qualifies a student to enter one of the top two or three universities, which will virtually guarantee a great job on graduation, a high salary and a good life. Moving down the scale of results, the prospects become increasingly meager.

许多西方人或多或少都知道中国的高考，这是中国一年一度的大学入学考试，每年有大约1亿名考生参加。这场考试相当困难，甚至可以说是残酷的，考试内容包括了许多科目，考试总共持续3天。考试要求学生具有渊博的知识、深刻的理解能力、极高的智商，这些考试要求学生的学习基础扎实，偏科的学生几乎不可能取得好成绩。在高考冲取得好成绩的学生，在中国15亿人中只占1%。那些在高考中获得高分的学生们，不仅能够进入中国数一数二的大学，而且也能够在毕业后获得高薪工作和美好的生活。越是远离金字塔尖的学生，前景越是渺茫。

Few Westerners are aware that China also has a system of bar examinations which every graduate lawyer must pass in order to practice law in China. For these, we can bypass “stiff” and “harsh” and go directly to “severe”. These examinations require not only high intelligence but deep knowledge of the laws and a broad understanding of all matters legal, and are so difficult that many refuse to even attempt them. Of about 250,000 graduate lawyers who sit the exam, only about 20,000 will pass and obtain qualifications to actually practice law in China. If you meet a Chinese lawyer, you can be assured you are dealing with someone from top 0.1% of that same pool of 1.5 billion people.

很少有西方人意识到，中国同样也有一套律师资格证考试系统，每个中国律师要想在中国从事法律工作，就必须通过这门考试。对于这些人来说，“困难”、“残酷”、“绝望”已经远远不能形容他们了。这些资格证考试不仅要求极高的智商，而且还要求将法律条文烂熟于心，要求对法律有深刻的理解，困难程度甚至让很多想要从事法律工作的人望而却步。在每年250000名法律考生中，只有大约2000人才能通过考试，取得法律从业执照，成为律师或其他法律职业。如果你亲眼见到任何一名中国律师，可以确定的是，你所见到的是15亿中国人中只占0.1%的顶级社会精英。

I mention these two items only to introduce a third – the Civil Service Examinations.

我举出这两个例子，仅仅是为了第三个例子做铺垫——中国公务员考试

The Imperial civil service examinations were designed many centuries ago to select the best administrative officials for the state’s bureaucracy. They lasted as long as 72 hours, and required a great depth and breadth of knowledge to pass. As one author noted, “It was an eminently fair system in that the exam itself had no qualifications.” Almost anyone, even from the least educated family in the poorest town, could sit the exam and, if that person did well enough, he or she could join the civil service and potentially rise to a senior management position. The modern civil service examination system evolved from the imperial one, and today millions of graduates write these each year. They are extremely difficult. Of perhaps two million candidates only about 10,000 will get a pass. And that pass doesn’t get you a job; all it gets you is an interview. When you meet someone who has entered the civil service in China’s Central Government, you can rest assured you are speaking to a person who is not only unnervingly intelligent but exceptionally well-educated and knowledgeable on a broad range of national issues, and also is in the top 0.01% of a pool of 1.5 billion people.

早在几个世纪以前，中国还是封建王朝时代，在那个时候，公务员考试就已经出现了，目的是选拔最优秀的人到政府机构任职。当时的公务员考试，持续时间72小时，需要考生具有从古到今渊博的知识才能通过。正如一本书的作者说说的那样：“那是一个非常公平的制度，因为参加考试的人不分高低贵贱。”几乎任何人，甚至来自贫穷城镇的没怎么读过书的人，都能去参加考试，如果那个寒门子弟考得不错，不仅他/她本人都会永久成为公务员，而且他/她的家庭也会鸡犬升天。中国现当下的这个公务员考试，是古代的科举制度的进化版本，如今，中国每年都有上百万大学毕业生参加这个考试。这个考试难度变态。在200万考生中，大约只有1万名考生能够通过考试。即便通过了考试，也并不意味着考生能够立刻获得公务员的工作，还得进入第二论面试环节。如果你亲眼见到任何一个成功进入中国中央政府的人，你可以确定，你见到的是一名不仅智商令人生畏，而且也受过优良教育，拥有渊博的文化知识，对中国的各种问题有广泛的了解，这种人在15亿中国人中只占0.01%。

And the examination is only the beginning of 30 to 40 years of an accumulation of the knowledge and experience necessary to become a member of China’s Central Government. The top 1% of this tiny group will then form the Politburo, with one of these few becoming China’s President. These people who have passed the civil service examinations and will become the senior officials and civil servants in China’s national government, have entered a lifelong career in a formidable meritocracy where promotion and responsibility can be obtained only by demonstrated ability.

在中央政府公务员考试之前，考生还必须具备30到40年的地方政府工作经验。中央政府公务员中，只有1%的人有权力组建中共中央政治局人选，而在中央政治局中，只有几个人才有可能成为中国主席。那些通过中国公务员考试的人，将会成为中国各级政府的终身高级官员，但是即便如此，这些人中只有那些在工作中做出极为突出业绩的人，才能够获得晋升。

We should here consider that the Chinese generally score about 10% higher on standard IQ tests than do Caucasian Westerners. When we couple this with the Chinese process of weeding out the bottom 99.99% from consideration, and add further the prospect of doing the weeding from a pool of 1.5 billion people, you might expect the individuals in China’s Central Government to be rather better qualified than those of most other countries. And they are. The point of this is to bring your attention to the disparity between the quality of “politicians” in Western countries and China’s government officials. The discrepancy is so vast that comparisons are largely meaningless. China’s government officials are all highly-educated and trained engineers, economists, sociologists, scientists, often at a Ph.D. level. A visit to any top university campus in China would make it obvious to anyone that the Communist Party continues to attract the best and the brightest of the country’s youth.

我们无法回避一个问题，那就是中国人在智商测试中的分数，比西方高加索人不普遍高出10%的分数。但是，当我们用中国金字塔塔尖那一部分人，来跟西方高加索人对比的话，你很可能会意识到智商的差距会更加明显。而事实也确实如此。笔者本人写了如此多故事背景，想要表达的重点是，西方国家的“政客们”与中国的公务员们是存在巨大差距的。差距如此之大，以至于在他们之间进行比较，都很大程度上毫无意义。中国政府官员都是些什么人？都是些受过高等教育的和良好训练的前工程师、前经济学家、前社会学家、前科学家，博士一大把。当任何人走在中国顶级大学的校园里时，就能深切感受到，中国共产党正在吸引这个国家最优秀最开明的年轻人加入其中。

There are some who will tell you that family connections in China can produce a government job for some favored son, a claim that may be true for minor positions at a local level, though extremely difficult beyond that and impossible at the national level. No number of connections will move anyone into senior positions or to the top of decision-making power, those places reserved for persons of deep experience and proven ability. Also noteworthy is that family wealth and influence plays no part in these appointments. Of China’s highest ruling body, the 25-member Politburo, only seven came from any background of wealth or power. The remainder, including China’s President and Prime Minister, came from backgrounds that offered no special advantages and rose to the top based on merit alone. In the larger Central Committee, those with privileged backgrounds are even scarcer. References in the Western media to China’s “Princelings” are merely an offensive and ignorant racial slur.

有人会告诉你，在中国，家庭裙带关系可以为一些官员的子女提供政府工作，这一说法在三四线小县城等——地方一级的小职位上可能是正确的，尽管如此，除此之外的其它情况全都极其困难，在国家一级的政府部门更是不可能的。没有多少裙带关系的人可以进入决定中国命运的高级职位，这些职位是给有丰富经验和能力的人保留的。同样值得注意的是，那些有钱有影响力的家族，无法染指中国高级职位。在中国最高领导层当中，有25位政治局委员，其中只有7人有雄厚的财力背景。剩下的那些人，包括中国主席和总理，都来自没有特殊优势的背景，仅凭自身的功绩就走上了巅峰。在更大的中央委员中，那些有特权背景的人更为稀少。西方媒体对中国“太子党”的提及只是一种冒犯和无知的种族诽谤。

There is another distinction here of immense importance that is never discussed in the West. In our Western democracies we have “politicians” and we have “civil servants”, who are two entirely different species, the civil servants being those whose jobs require serious credentials because we cannot have elected nincompoops running our National Revenue Service or transportation networks. These people function in spite of the politicians. But because China has only one “party”, the country has nothing that we could refer to as “politicians”; in fact and reality, all Chinese government officials are what we could term “civil servants”. They are all simply managers at various levels. In the West, and using Canada as an example, it is legend that senior civil servants in the Finance or Foreign Affairs Departments generally despise the elected politicians who typically know little if anything about the actual operation of their departments and must refer to the civil servants for knowledge. In China, it is the opposite, where the Minister of Foreign Affairs or Finance is the ultimate reservoir of knowledge. This is essentially the same as we would find in any corporation, where the V-P of Finance is the final authority rather than being an “elected” executive given the Finance Department as a place to “earn while you learn”, which is what we find in an electoral democracy.

这里还有另一个在西方从未讨论过的极其重要的区别。在我们的西方民主国家，我们有“政治家”和“公务员”，他们是两个完全不同的物种，公务员是那些工作需要认真证书的人，因为我们不能选出管理国家税务局或交通网络的笨蛋。这些人不顾政客们的影响而发挥作用。但由于中国只有一个“政党”，这个国家没有我们可以称之为“政客”的东西；事实上，所有中国政府官员都是我们所说的“公务员”。他们都只是各级管理人员。在西方，以加拿大为例，传说财政部或外交部的高级公务员通常鄙视民选政客，他们通常对部门的实际运作知之甚少，必须向公务员请教。在中国，情况恰恰相反，外交部长或财政部长是知识的最终宝库。这与我们在任何公司中看到的基本相同，在任何公司，财政部是最终权力机构，而不是“民选”高管，因为财政部是一个“边学习边赚钱”的地方，这就是我们在选举民主中看到的。

The World’s Number One University

世界第一大学

It is not widely known in China, and not at all in the West, that hidden in Beijing is an institution that is almost certainly the top university in the world, one unlike any other, and whose qualities in conception and execution put all Western universities to shame. This University, sometimes called “the most mysterious school in China”, is the Central Party University, with a slate of both students and faculty that are an order of magnitude above colleges like Harvard, Cambridge or the Sorbonne. To say that entrance qualifications are extreme, would be an understatement of some magnitude. This is not a place like Harvard where a $5 million donation to an endowment fund will obtain admission for your dim-witted offspring who will be taught primarily by part-time so-called adjunct “professors”.

隐藏在北京的一所大学几乎可以肯定是世界上顶尖的大学，这一点在中国并不广为人知，在西方也根本不为人所知，它在理念和执行方面的素质让所有西方大学都相形见绌。这所大学有时被称为“中国最神秘的学校”，是中央党校，其学生和教职员工人数都比哈佛、剑桥或索邦等大学高出一个数量级。要说入学资格是极端的，在某种程度上是轻描淡写的。这不是一个像哈佛这样的地方，向捐赠基金捐赠500万美元，就能让你愚蠢的后代入学，他们将主要由兼职的所谓兼职“教授”授课。

Originally founded in 1933, the University’s purpose is to educate and mature those individuals having passed the civil service examinations and to prepare them both in their career development and in the responsibilities of governing the world’s most populous nation. It is the training ground for future leaders of the country, and whose headmaster is usually the President of China. To date, this university has trained perhaps 100,000 government leaders and high officials. The school is not normally open to the general public, but in the past few decades this university has offered some very high-level postgraduate and doctoral programs for about 500 non-official students, focusing on philosophy, economics, law, politics and history.

该大学最初成立于1933年，其目的是教育和培养那些通过公务员考试的人，并为他们的职业发展和管理世界上人口最多的国家的责任做好准备。它是国家未来领导人的训练场，校长通常是中国国家主席。到目前为止，这所大学已经培训了大约10万名政府领导人和高级官员。这所学校通常不对公众开放，但在过去的几十年里，这所大学为大约500名非官方学生提供了一些非常高水平的研究生和博士课程，重点是哲学、经济学、法律、政治和历史。

“The 100-hectare leafy campus is extremely quiet and here, unlike all other universities in China, we see no bicycles but instead the roads outside school buildings are lined with black Audis. The gates are under armed guard 24 hours a day, seven days a week, the security necessary for those who study there – provincial governors and ministers, young and middle-aged officials, their guest speakers and sometimes the country’s top leaders.”

“这座占地100公顷、绿树成荫的校园非常安静，与中国所有其他大学不同，这里没有自行车，而是学校大楼外的道路两旁都是黑色奥迪。大门一周七天、每天24小时都有武装警卫，这是在那里学习的人所必需的安全措施——省长和部长、中青年官员、他们的嘉宾，有时是国家的最高领导人。”

Not only are the admitted students the best and brightest of the top 0.01% who passed the Civil Service examinations, but the professors at this Central Party University are unique in the world, a far cry from the adjunct lecturers at most American universities. The professors here are exclusively the most competent in the nation. Guest lecturers include high-level Chinese officials and, in important topics of debate, the school has no hesitation in bringing in the world’s most renowned experts from any country on everything from economics and international finance to social policy, foreign policy, industrial policy and even military matters. Further, the frequent guest lecturers are often national leaders of other countries and other high-level foreign dignitaries, this to give Chinese officials not only a firm grounding in the knowledge and skills necessary to govern China, but also a wider horizon and better understanding of different cultures, values and political systems.

录取的学生不仅是通过公务员考试的前0.01%中最优秀、最聪明的，而且这所中央党校的教授在世界上也是独一无二的，与大多数美国大学的兼职讲师相去甚远。这里的教授完全是全国最有能力的。客座讲师包括中国高级官员，在重要的辩论话题中，该校毫不犹豫地从任何国家引进了世界上最著名的专家，从经济学和国际金融到社会政策、外交政策、产业政策，甚至军事事务。此外，经常担任客座讲师的往往是其他国家的国家领导人和其他高级外国政要，这不仅使中国官员在治理中国所需的知识和技能方面有了坚实的基础，而且使他们有了更广阔的视野，更好地了解不同的文化、价值观和政治制度。

The cornerstone of the school’s educational policy is that everything is on the table. There are no forbidden topics, and even reactionary, revolutionary or just plain whacky positions are discussed, analysed and debated to resolution. If, for example, the topic is national health care, all manner of planning, problems, solutions, alternatives, will be discussed, examined, debated, explained, with any number of prominent experts available as reference material. When these sessions are completed, all students will have an MBA-level or better appreciation of the entire subject. And this is only one subject of many they will encounter.

学校教育政策的基石是一切都摆在桌面上。没有被禁止的话题，甚至反动、革命或纯粹的古怪立场都会被讨论、分析和辩论到解决问题。例如，如果主题是国家医疗保健，将讨论、审查、辩论和解释各种规划、问题、解决方案和替代方案，并提供任何数量的知名专家作为参考材料。当这些课程完成后，所有学生都将达到MBA水平或对整个学科有更好的理解。这只是他们将要遇到的众多问题中的一个。

When you consider that these officials entered the government with an already high level of education, and with an already demonstrated broad level of understanding and exceptional intelligence, these additional layers of training and education cannot help but produce an impressive level of overall knowledge and ability throughout the government. Nothing like this system exists in the West.

当你考虑到这些官员进入政府时，已经有了很高的教育水平，并且已经表现出了广泛的理解和非凡的智慧，这些额外的培训和教育层会在整个政府中产生令人印象深刻的整体知识和能力。西方不存在这样的制度。

The general process is that at various intervals the most promising young and middle-aged officials attend this university for up to a year at a time, to expand their knowledge and understanding of all issues relating to China and government, usually followed by a promotion. Stints at the Central Party University will alternate with rotating assignments in all manner of government Departments at the local, provincial and national levels, as well as with assignments in various state-owned commercial enterprises, both domestic and foreign. In most cases, these work and experience assignments are alternated with classroom time at this university, the students assimilating what they have learned in their prior assignment and receiving preparation for their next posting.

一般的过程是，最有前途的中青年官员每隔一段时间就会进入这所大学，每次最多一年，以扩大他们对与中国和政府有关的所有问题的知识和理解，然后通常会升职。中央党校的Stints将与地方、省和国家各级政府部门的轮换任务以及国内外各种国有商业企业的任务交替进行。在大多数情况下，这些工作和经验作业与这所大学的课堂时间交替进行，学生们吸收他们在上一次作业中学到的知识，并为下一次任职做准备。

An individual might potentially rotate through a small local government, a corporate finance department, work as a local health care executive, a provincial education head, become the mayor of a small city, the head of another corporate department, the mayor of a larger city, the governor of a province, a senior executive or CEO of a major state corporation, and so on, perhaps each time returning to the university for additional education and training. These people are not learning how to be better “politicians”; they are learning how to “manage” all aspects of a country.

个人可能会通过小型地方政府、企业财务部门轮换，担任当地医疗保健主管、省级教育主管，成为一个小城市的市长、另一个企业部门的主管、一个大城市的市长，一个省的省长，一个大型国有公司的高级执行官或首席执行官，等等，也许每次都会回到大学接受额外的教育和培训。这些人没有学会如何成为更好的“政治家”；他们正在学习如何“管理”一个国家的方方面面。

Evaluations

评价体系

At each stage, with each government or corporate posting, the incumbents are evaluated on a vast array of criteria. Those who continue to shine will continue to progress to postings of increased vision and responsibility. Those who appear to have reached their limit will be sidelined. They won’t be removed or fired, but will be given postings commensurate with their abilities, above which level they cannot rise. From all this, China has the only government system in the world that ensures competence at the top.

在每一个阶段，每一个政府或企业职位，都会根据一系列标准对现任者进行评估。那些继续发光发热的人将继续进步，成为更有远见和责任感的职位。那些看起来已经达到极限的人将被边缘化。他们不会被免职或解雇，但会得到与其能力相称的职位，超过这个级别他们就无法晋升。从这一切来看，中国拥有世界上唯一一个确保高层能力的政府体系。

In China’s system, leaders and officials are evaluated by their superiors, not by the unqualified and uninformed ‘man in the street’. Consider the mayor of a city in a Western country. After one term in office, who evaluates this person? The general public, who have neither the training nor experience to perform such evaluations. The “public” do not understand the job or its requirements, and haven’t the facts on which to base an intelligent evaluation, resulting in what becomes essentially a popularity contest, superficialities being the deciding factors. If I were to put the question to you: what does the mayor of a city do, few could provide a coherent response. To say that “he runs the city”, is not an answer. The truth is that, except in vaguely general terms, we have little knowledge or information about a mayor’s job functions and responsibilities; no detail. If the city seems to be doing well, we cannot know if this is due to the mayor’s skill or to circumstances beyond his control. The inconvenient truth is that the local citizens, the voters, have no way to know if a mayor is good or bad, incompetent or corrupt, because they lack the tools and knowledge to perform a sensible evaluation.

在中国的体制中，领导人和官员是由上级来评估的，而不是由不合格和不知情的“街头人”来评估的。以西方国家一个城市的市长为例。一届任期后，谁来评价这个人？普通公众，他们既没有接受过培训，也没有进行此类评估的经验。“公众”不了解这份工作或其要求，也没有事实作为明智评估的依据，这导致了一场本质上的人气竞赛，肤浅是决定因素。如果我要问你一个问题：一个城市的市长做什么，很少有人能做出一致的回应。说“他管理着这座城市”并不是一个答案。事实是，除了模糊的一般术语外，我们对市长的工作职能和责任知之甚少；没有细节。如果这个城市看起来做得很好，我们无法知道这是由于市长的技能还是由于他无法控制的情况。令人不安的事实是，当地公民，即选民，无法知道市长是好是坏、无能还是腐败，因为他们缺乏进行合理评估的工具和知识。

In China’s system, (as part of the above ‘educational process’), a city mayor is evaluated by his seniors, men who were mayors of small and large cities before he was born, men who thoroughly understand every aspect of his job and who cannot be duped. It is the same as in a corporation, where for example we evaluate the job performance of a regional sales manager. Who performs this evaluation? The salesmen? The workers on the factory floor? No. They haven’t the knowledge or ability. The man is evaluated by his superiors who know his job intimately and who are able to accurately assess his performance and his potential for promotion.

在中国的体制中，（作为上述“教育过程”的一部分），市长的评价标准是他的前辈、在他出生之前担任过大小城市市长的人、对工作的方方面面都了解透彻、不会上当的人。这与在公司中一样，例如，我们评估区域销售经理的工作表现。谁进行此评估？推销员？工厂里的工人？不，他们没有知识或能力。这个人是由他的上级来评估的，他们非常了解他的工作，能够准确地评估他的表现和晋升潜力。

Provincial government leaders are in the same situation, where their performance is evaluated by their seniors, by men who have immense experience in governing provinces, who again understand the job intimately and cannot be duped. But there is much more here that never reaches Western minds. A man (or woman) who has passed the entrance exams and is now on this lifetime meritocratic process, may be appointed governor of a province, but this is not a reward of prestige for prior good behavior. Instead, it is a test. Typically, this new person will approach his appointment with one question: “How can I double the GDP of this province and thus raise the living standards of all the residents”? And double the GDP, they do.

省级政府领导人也面临同样的情况，他们的表现由上级评估，由在治理省份方面有丰富经验的人评估，他们再次非常了解这项工作，不能上当受骗。但这里还有很多东西是西方人永远不会想到的。一个已经通过入学考试的男人或女人，现在正处于这一辈子的精英统治过程中，可能会被任命为一个省的省长，但这并不是因为他之前的良好行为而获得的声望奖励。相反，这是一种考验。通常，这个新人在上任时会问一个问题：“我如何才能让这个省的GDP翻一番，从而提高所有居民的生活水平？”？而GDP翻了一番，他们做到了。

I will give you here a real-life example that is actually quite common. A new governor sought out the most impoverished location in the province and assigned a huge study team to seek out opportunities for progress. His team discovered that the local climate and soil conditions were excellent for the growing of certain Chinese herbs, and they immediately went to work sourcing plant material, building infrastructure, and conducting the necessary educational programs for the farmers, as well as establishing supply chains and marketing practices. Within five years, all residents of the area owned their own new homes and more than half were driving BMWs. Such economic factors are important, but are only one of many measures applied, and it is on factors such as this, that candidates are evaluated. After his successful experience here, the man would likely return to the party university for further education that would lead to another appointment. After 30 to 40 years of this, and with continuing ability being demonstrated, the man might qualify for membership in China’s National Congress.

这里我会给大家举一个现实生活中的例子，这个例子其实很常见。一位新上任的省长找到了该省最贫困的地方，并指派了一个庞大的研究团队来寻找进步的机会。他的团队发现，当地的气候和土壤条件非常适合种植某些中草药，他们立即开始寻找植物材料，建设基础设施，为农民开展必要的教育项目，并建立供应链和营销实践。五年内，该地区所有居民都拥有自己的新房，超过一半的人都在开宝马。这样的经济因素很重要，但只是应用的众多指标之一，而候选人的评估正是基于这样的因素。在这里获得成功后，他很可能会回到党校继续深造，并获得另一个任命。在经历了30到40年的这种情况后，随着能力的持续展示，此人可能有资格成为中国的全国代表大会成员。

A Comparison

比较

Contrast this with the Western system where politicians most often have no useful education and no relevant training or experience.

与之形成对比的是，西方的政治体制通常没有有用的教育，也没有相关的培训或经验。

One of Canada’s recent Prime Ministers, Stephen Harper, had only a minor undergraduate degree and his only job was working in a corporate mail room when he joined the rump of a ruined political party, became the party leader and, by a genuinely cruel fate, eventually became the Prime Minister, irreparably damaging Canada in his ignorance. His successor, Justin Trudeau, was a fired school teacher (do a search; see what you find) whose long-term room-mate was sentenced to ten years in prison for running an enormous child-pornography ring. In Canada’s province of Alberta, a recent Premier was a high-school dropout, a former television news reporter, renowned more for being an obnoxious habitual drunk than for intelligence or governing ability, and who totally destroyed what was arguably the best health care system in Canada. US President George Bush was renowned for boasting that he never read any books, being nearly as painfully unintelligent as Ronald Reagan whose only credential was having been a C-class movie actor.

加拿大新任总理史蒂芬·哈珀只有一个本科学位，他唯一的工作就是在一家公司的邮件收发室工作，当时他加入了一个被摧毁的政党的残余势力，成为了该党的领袖，最终以一种真正残酷的命运成为了总理，在无知中对加拿大造成了不可挽回的损害。他的继任者贾斯汀·特鲁多是一名被解雇的学校教师（搜索一下，看看你能找到什么），他的长期室友因经营一个庞大的儿童色情团伙而被判处十年监禁。在加拿大的阿尔伯塔省，最近的一位总理是一名高中辍学者，曾任电视新闻记者，他更出名的是一个令人讨厌的习惯性醉酒者，而不是智力或执政能力。他彻底摧毁了加拿大可以说是最好的医疗体系。美国总统乔治·布什以自吹自擂从未读过任何书而闻名，他几乎和罗纳德·里根一样缺乏智慧，而罗纳德·里根唯一的资历就是当过C级电影演员。

None of these men had a CV sufficient to qualify as a manager of a 7-11 and none demonstrated signs of either intelligence or governing ability, yet a ludicrous and absurd political system permitted them to become the CEO of nations and provinces.

这些人的履历都不足以成为7-11的经理，也没有人表现出智慧或执政能力的迹象，然而荒谬可笑的政治制度让他们得以成为国家和省份的首席执行官。

An examination of the backgrounds and credentials of politicians in any Western nation will reveal mostly a collection of politically-ambitious misfits strikingly lacking in redeeming qualities, and often corrupt to the core. It was widely reported that within two years after the 2008 housing crisis, when a full 50% of the middle class had lost half their assets, the members of the US Congress had dramatically increased their wealth.

对任何西方国家的政治人物的背景和资历进行考察，都会发现他们大多是一群有政治抱负的异类，明显缺乏救赎的品质，而且往往腐败透顶。据广泛报道，2008年房地产危机发生后两年内，美国国会议员的财富大幅增加，当时整整50%的中产阶级失去了一半的资产。

It is not a surprise that Western politicians are ranked lower than used-car salesmen and snakes in terms of both morality and trustworthiness. In one recent US public poll, the politicians of both houses of the entire US Congress were rated as less popular than cockroaches and lice. It is accepted as a truism that all Western politicians will, after being elected, freely abandon the commitments made to the people immediately prior to being elected, political duplicity and cunning accepted as normal in all Western societies. This is so true that one US commentator recently remarked that “Of course, all politicians need to lie, but the Clintons do it with such ease that it’s troubling”. Such a thing is unheard of in China. Outright lying to the people would be fatal but, in the West, dishonesty in government leaders is accepted without a murmur.

在道德和可信度方面，西方政界人士的排名低于二手车推销员和蛇类并不令人意外。在最近的一次美国民意调查中，美国国会两院的政治人物被评为不如蟑螂和虱子那么受欢迎。所有西方政客当选后都会自由地放弃在当选前对人民所做的承诺，这是一个不言而喻的事实，在所有西方社会，政治上的两面性和狡猾都被视为常态。这是如此真实，以至于一位美国评论员最近评论说，“当然，所有的政客都需要撒谎，但克林顿夫妇这么做太容易了，以至于让人不安。”。这样的事情在中国是闻所未闻的。直接对人民撒谎是致命的，但在西方，政府领导人的不诚实是可以接受的，不会有怨言。

In any discussion about government systems, Americans inevitably stake the claim, as a measure of the superiority of their democratic system, that “We have the right to vote out our incompetent politicians”. They cannot imagine how bizarre and foolish such a claim sounds to an intelligent person from another country. If you want to boast about the superiority of your political system, then tell me it is impossible for your country to elect an idiot in the first place. Don’t tell me that you have the right to kick him out afterwards. That’s an open admission of failure.

在任何关于政府制度的讨论中，美国人都不可避免地宣称，作为衡量他们民主制度优越性的标准，“我们有权投票罢免我们不称职的政客”。他们无法想象这样的说法对一个来自另一个国家的聪明人来说有多么离奇和愚蠢。如果你想夸耀自己的政治制度优越，那就告诉我，你的国家根本不可能选出一个白痴。别告诉我你有权在事后把他赶出去。这是对失败的公开承认。

There is another factor to consider, that of education and training. For Western politicians who exercise the decision power to shape a country, there is in fact no governing education or training available. It is all a kind of “earn while you learn” system, whereas in China entry is impossible without extreme credentials and, once in the system, the education and training are never-ending.

还有一个因素需要考虑，那就是教育和培训。对那些行使决定权来塑造一个国家的西方政客来说，事实上根本没有政府教育或培训。这完全是一种“边学边赚”的制度，而在中国，没有极高的学历是不可能进入的，一旦进入这个制度，教育和培训就永远不会结束。

The system is generally well understood within China, and it meshes well with Chinese culture and tradition as well as conforming to the Chinese psyche in their Confucian overview and their desire for social order and (yes) harmony. The Western world understands this dimly, if at all, and inevitably forms incorrect and often absurd conclusions about China and its government. Few Westerners have bothered to learn even the simple basics about the form of China’s government, preferring instead to parrot foolish nonsense about China being a dictatorship or, as one writer recently stated, “a deeply tyrannical regime”. It is of course no such thing; the level of Western ideological blindness and willful ignorance being simply appalling.

这个体系在中国国内普遍得到了很好的理解，它与中国文化和传统很好地契合，符合中国人对儒家思想的理解，以及他们对社会秩序和和谐的渴望。西方世界对这一点的理解是模糊的，如果有的话，而且不可避免地会对中国及其政府形成错误的、往往是荒谬的结论。很少有西方人愿意学习中国政府形式的简单基础知识，而更愿意鹦鹉学舌地胡说中国是一个独裁国家，或者像一位作家最近所说的那样，是一个“极度专制的政权”。当然不是这样的事情；西方意识形态的盲目性和故意的无知程度简直令人震惊。

Epilogue

后记

If you are an American, consider for a moment how it would be if your country could identify and assemble the 500 most intelligent, wisest, the least corruptible, the most educated and experienced people in the nation, then fill Congress with this group, selecting the best few to be the leaders – the President and Cabinet members. Consider also this group not divided by ideologies but all part of the same team, working together to implement what was best for America and Americans. How would your country be different in five years?

如果你是美国人，想一想，如果你的国家能找出并汇集全美500名最聪明、最聪明、最不腐败、受教育程度最高、经验最丰富的人，然后让国会充满这群人，选出少数最优秀的领导人——总统和内阁成员——会是什么样的情况。再看看这个群体吧，他们不是被意识形态分开的，而是同一个团队的一部分，共同努力实现对美国和美国人最有利的目标。五年后你的国家会有什么不同？

Now, consider something else. Numerous government officials, experts in foreign affairs, think-tank participants, and many academics, have been unanimous in stating in one manner or another:

现在再想想别的吧。许多政府官员、外交专家、智库参与者和许多学者都一致表示：

“Whenever something important occurs in either domestic policies or in international affairs, there are no accidents. When something significant happens, you can bet it was planned that way.”

无论是在国内政策还是在国际事务中，只要发生重要的事情，都不会发生意外。当重大的事情发生时，你可以打赌它是这样计划的。

Multi-party electoral systems (democracies) have been with us for several hundred years, but it seems that during all that time, it has never occurred to anyone (except, apparently, the Chinese) that scraping the unwashed and inferior off the streets, was not the ideal method for good government. During those centuries, we have had scores of failed governments, enormous blunders of every description, collapsed economies, repeated recessions and depressions, interminable wars, and more, all caused by “government by the people” run by thousands of incompetent politicians. And yet through all those years and countless hundreds of elections, it seems to not have occurred to anyone that serious credentials of education and ability might be an improvement.

多党选举制度（民主制度）已经伴随我们几百年了，但在这段时间里，似乎从来没有任何人（显然中国人除外）意识到，把没有洗过澡的人和劣等的人赶下街头，不是好政府的理想方法。在那几个世纪里，我们有几十个失败的政府、各种各样的重大失误、崩溃的经济、反复的衰退和萧条、没完没了的战争等等，所有这些都是由数千名无能的政客领导的“人民政府”造成的。然而，在这些年里，在无数次选举中，似乎没有人意识到，认真的学历和能力证明可能是一种进步。

Now, it is obvious to me that to select the best and brightest from the entire nation and to give them extensive education and training, would produce a higher caliber of government official, and it must be just as obvious to you. Are we to believe that during all those centuries, you and I are the only two people to have realised this?

现在，我很清楚，从全国挑选最优秀、最聪明的人，并对他们进行广泛的教育和培训，将培养出更高素质的政府官员，这一点对你们来说也同样显而易见。我们是否应该相信，在这几个世纪里，只有你和我意识到了这一点？

When the European Jewish bankers – the Khazar mafia operating out of the City of London, instigated the series of European revolutions that replaced the monarchs, one of their prime motivations was to construct a form of national government that would make impossible further expulsions of Jews from those countries. To accomplish this, it was necessary to replace the monarchs with a form of government that could be totally controlled from behind the scenes, and our multi-party power-struggle system was the result. It also occurred to them from the start that a politically-ambitious but impecunious, unintelligent, uninformed, and largely incapable man off the street would be much easier to buy, to control and to corrupt, than would have been the best and brightest in the land.

当欧洲犹太银行家——在伦敦城外活动的哈扎尔黑手党——煽动了一系列取代君主制的欧洲革命时，他们的主要动机之一就是建立一种国家政府形式，让犹太人不可能进一步被驱逐出这些国家。要做到这一点，就必须用一种完全可以在幕后控制的政府形式来取代君主，结果就是我们的多党权力斗争体系。他们从一开始就意识到，一个有政治抱负但缺乏智慧、无知、基本上无能的街头男人，要比这个国家最优秀和最聪明的人更容易被收买、控制和腐败。

Consider lastly that this blindingly-obvious and fatal defect has never been mentioned in the (Jewish-owned) media, never discussed in our (Jewish-published) history or political science texts, or anywhere else, at least not to my knowledge. Instead, “democracy” has been elevated to a religion so holy that the mere questioning of it constitutes a treasonous blasphemy, and has been incessantly promoted daily from birth as a universal value reflecting the yearnings of all mankind. Do you wonder why?

最后再想想，这个显而易见、致命的缺陷从未在（犹太人所有的）媒体上被提及过，也从未在我们的（犹太人出版的）历史或政治学文本中被讨论过，或在其他任何地方被讨论过，至少据我所知是这样的。相反，“民主”被提升为一种神圣的宗教，仅仅质疑它就构成了一种叛逆的亵渎，并且从出生起就作为反映全人类渴望的普世价值观每天都在不停地被宣传。你想知道为什么吗？

His full archive can be seen at:

他的完整档案可在以下网站查看：

https://www.bluemoonofshanghai.com/ and https://www.moonofshanghai.com/

He can be contacted at:

联系方式如下：

2186604556@qq.com

CN — LARRY ROMANOFF: 伊拉克、科威特和海湾战争

Featured

Luisa Vasconcellos

April 4, 2023

伊拉克、科威特和海湾战争

到2023年3月24日拉里·罗曼诺夫

译者：珍珠

President George H.W. Bush (second from right) meets with Defense Secretary Dick Cheney (third from left) and military advisors General Norman Schwarzkopf (second from left) and Joint Chiefs Chairman Colin Powell (right) at the Pentagon to discuss the Gulf crisis, August 15, 1990.Gary Cameron/Reuters Source

1990年8月15日，乔治·H·W·布什总统（右二）在五角大楼会见了国防部长迪克·切尼（左三）、军事顾问诺曼·施瓦茨科夫上将（左二）和参谋长联席会议主席科林·鲍威尔（右三），讨论海湾危机来源

底格里斯河和幼发拉底河之间是我们世界上最早的“文明摇篮”之一，这片土地曾被称为美索不达米亚，是苏美尔、阿卡迪亚和巴比伦统治者的家园，直到今天，这些名字仍然让人想起财富和高水平发展的景象。我们现在把这片土地称为伊拉克，但财富和发展都消失了。今天的伊拉克是一个贫穷而可悲的影子，与以前的伊拉克相比，它破碎、背叛、毁灭，卷入内战。伊拉克作为一个独立国家消失了，成为了美国军事控制下的一个永久犹太殖民地，一个现在没有未来的国家。我在其他文章中谈到了伊拉克问题，所以我在这里的评论仅限于与科威特和海湾战争直接相关的历史部分。

该地区已成为英国统治的一部分，被西方列强分割开来，不顾在那里生活了数千年的本土文明，只是为了帝国列强的利益而分割开来，包括将一半的巴勒斯坦领土让给犹太人，让他们组成自己的家园，从而为60年的痛苦而无法解决的冲突创造了条件。第一次世界大战结束后，奥斯曼帝国即将崩溃，而且知道该地区拥有丰富的石油储备，英国想控制中东棋盘上的许多棋子。为了自己的殖民目的，法国和英国自由地拆除了奥斯曼帝国和阿拉伯国家，创立了伊拉克石油公司，其中95%的股份流向了英国、法国和美国。

维基百科告诉我们，科威特是“一个酋长国，1752年在萨巴赫一世统治下，从哈萨哈利迪酋长国获得独立”，但事实并非如此。[1] 这是西方官方为了掩盖过去的罪行而撒谎的说法。西方非但没有将科威特归还伊拉克，反而让这个酋长国获得了“独立”，从而为未来的战争再次创造了条件。[2] 2021年，所有人都在庆祝“科威特脱离英国独立60周年”，却没有提到伊拉克，仿佛科威特一直以某种方式“属于”英国。当然，《英国卫报》也在那里庆祝。[3]

King Faisal II of Iraq and Queen Elizabeth II of Great Britain leaving Victoria Station, London, for Buckingham Palace.

A youthful King Faisal in the company of HM Queen Elizabeth II during a state visit to Great Britain. Source

在英国进行国事访问期间，年轻的费萨尔国王与英国女王伊丽莎白二世在一起。来源

多亏了西方修正主义的历史，很少有读者知道科威特一直是伊拉克的一部分，一个省，或者至少受制于伊拉克的宗主国。但英国希望在该地区建立一个深水海军港口，因此英国将科威特与伊拉克其他地区割裂开来，建立了一个新的英国殖民地，其人为边界没有任何历史或地理依据。伊拉克国王费萨尔从未接受科威特地区被截肢或拒绝伊拉克进入波斯湾的做法，对大多数伊拉克人来说，这是英国人羞辱的永久象征。对分离的强烈抵制依然存在，科威特在20世纪30年代经历了一场民众起义，要求与伊拉克统一，但伊拉克国王很快被发现死亡，被英国特工暗杀。尽管如此，伊拉克和阿拉伯世界普遍对科威特的这种分裂感到不满，认为这是英国和犹太人殖民利益的又一次从属关系，要求将科威特归还伊拉克的呼声也越来越强烈。然而，殖民主义者的回应是又一次“政权更迭”。

不幸的是，世界对伊拉克的了解仅限于我们在西方媒体上读到的东西，唯一确定的是这些信息是不真实的。我们听到了所有关于萨达姆·侯赛因是一个残暴的独裁者、暴君和杀人犯的故事，等等。我们被告知，萨达姆应对9-11袭击纽约世贸中心的事件负责。我们了解了他的“大规模杀伤性武器”——可怕的大规模杀伤性武器——并阅读了他如何用毒气杀害数十万自己的人民，并将他们的尸体埋在万人坑里的故事。但我们中的大多数人已经忘记，从来没有发现任何关于这些物品或事件的证据。从现有的所有证据来看，大规模谋杀的指控与核武器和生物计划的指控一样虚假，这些指控都是美国宣传机器为政权更迭做准备而制造的谎言。事实上，伊拉克是一个安全进步的世俗国家，拥有巨大的财富和成功前景。在萨达姆统治时期，与西方的宣传相反，伊拉克拥有免费教育，包括大学、免费医疗、向任何有需要的人广泛提供的食品包装、高水平的启蒙和远远优于包括以色列在内的中东任何国家的妇女权利，以及广泛的宗教宽容。伊拉克还为许多逃离家乡犹太种族灭绝的巴勒斯坦难民提供了家园。伊拉克的真相与美国战争营销机器的叙事截然不同。

然而，一个更大的问题仍然存在，这让我们回到了科威特。大多数西方人认为科威特是一个非常富有的小酋长国，但这从来都不是真的，而且与普遍的看法相反，科威特没有石油。重要的事实是，科威特的边境恰好毗邻伊拉克庞大的鲁迈拉油田，这是它的财富来源。虽然伊拉克因与伊朗的战争而分心，但科威特已逐渐将其与伊拉克的边界移到足够远的地方，以便获得伊拉克的石油。但这仍然不够，因为这些油田很大程度上仍在伊拉克境内。

如果你从未从事过石油行业，你就不知道什么是“定向钻井”，所以让我告诉你吧。当我们想到钻一口油井时，我们假设钻井是垂直的，钻杆会直接下入地下，但这种情况并不总是发生。油井几乎可以水平钻探。你可以在照片中看到，钻杆几乎是水平进入地面的。进行定向钻井有很多好的理由，也有一些不好的理由。后一种情况发生在我拥有的土地不含石油，但它就在你们非常大、利润丰厚的油田旁边。对我来说，最简单的解决办法就是从我的土地上以一个较浅的角度钻入你的油藏，然后偷走你所有的石油。科威特人就这么做了，结果证明利润丰厚，在美国人的支持下，科威特酋长以23亿美元的价格收购了加利福尼亚州阿罕布拉市的圣达菲钻井公司，并开始使用其定向钻井设备进入伊拉克油田。这些定向钻机可以伪装起来，藏在灌木丛或一小片树林里，甚至是建筑物里。如果你不注意，你永远不会知道有人在偷你的石油。

但萨达姆·侯赛因正在关注此事，他确实知道科威特正在吸走他数百万桶的石油，而且在西方列强的保护下，实际上已经窃取了价值数十亿美元的伊拉克石油。外交恳求、劝说、讨论、请求西方干预，都毫无效果。最后，在1990年9月，萨达姆与美国国务院的官员代表举行了几次会议，概述了自己的选择，并告诉美国，他认为只有军事手段才能解决这个问题。在每一个案例中，他都特别问，如果他认为有必要这么做，美国会做出什么回应。这些会议都被记录在案，并制作了成绩单，美国国务院对此没有异议。[4][5]在一个案例中，美国大使埃普里·格拉斯皮告诉侯赛因，“我们对……像你们与科威特的边界分歧这样的冲突没有意见。”。[]她多次重申这一立场，并补充说，“国务卿詹姆斯·贝克已指示我们的官方发言人强调这一指示。”其他回应都是相同的；美国正式通知伊拉克，如果伊拉克卷入美国所说的“地方争端”，美国没有意见，也不会采取行动。

无论如何，科威特作为一个“国家”根本不值得捍卫，这不仅仅是因为它是一个小偷。英国人建立的统治家族是独裁和残暴的，压迫着少数人，恐吓记者保持沉默，恐吓外国工人沦为契约劳役和近乎奴役。

在伊拉克入侵科威特一周前，另外两名国务卿发言人玛格丽特·塔特威勒和约翰·凯利都公开表示，“如果科威特受到攻击，美国没有义务援助它”。此外，凯利在众议院外交事务小组委员会作证称，美国“与任何海湾国家都没有国防条约关系”。[6][7] 因此，萨达姆相信自己可以收回科威特省，阻止石油盗窃并不令人意外。布什总统的白宫似乎为他提供了充分的支持和豁免权保障。根据这一保证，伊拉克军队入侵科威特，并迅速控制了该国。但这一点刚发生，美国就在联合国捏造的支持下，要求伊拉克立即撤军。在震惊中，伊拉克试图通过谈判撤军，但遭到了美国的拒绝，随后发现，美国在该地区的军事力量已经演练了击退伊拉克入侵科威特的作战计划。事实上，乔治·布什和美国国务院曾对萨达姆进行双重攻击，并把他的行为作为他们已经计划好的入侵伊拉克的借口。他们陷害了他，让他相信自己得到了他们的支持，然后背叛了他。有报道称，萨达姆与乔治·布什签订了一份成功的十字架合同。没有证据支持这一说法，但如果是真的，也就不足为奇了。

此后不久，美国和其他盟军对伊拉克及其在科威特的武装部队发动了毁灭性袭击。美国媒体把伊拉克军队描绘成全球威胁和强大的军事对手，但伊拉克在与伊朗的战争中仍然软弱，美国的攻击是极端的单方面。美国向战争派遣了50多万士兵，但只造成148人死亡，其中许多人死于“友军炮火”，而伊拉克则至少有10万人死亡，另有30万人受伤。激烈的战争摧毁了伊拉克80%的武器，而美国则在其野蛮行径中坚持不懈。有确凿的报道称，一个由15万人和大量车辆及武器组成的伊拉克炮兵营已停止撤退，并挥舞着白旗投降，当时美国下令进行全面空袭，几乎杀死了整个营。另有1.2万名想要投降的人在战壕里遭到屠杀，被美国埋葬在乱葬坑里。这里被称为伊拉克的“死亡之路”，美国人在这里屠杀了15万名已经投降并正在撤退的士兵。[]但我们从犹太媒体听到的只是，对科威特被“强行吞并”一事，“国际社会表达了愤怒”，全世界都要求撤除伊拉克，恢复“石油丰富的科威特”的“主权”[8][9][10][11]。每句话都是谎言。

联盟成员包括阿富汗、阿根廷、澳大利亚、巴林、孟加拉国、比利时、加拿大、捷克斯洛伐克、丹麦、埃及、法国、德国、希腊、洪都拉斯、匈牙利、意大利、科威特、摩洛哥、荷兰、新西兰、尼日尔、挪威、阿曼、巴基斯坦、波兰、葡萄牙、卡塔尔、沙特阿拉伯、塞内加尔、塞拉利昂、新加坡、韩国、西班牙、瑞典、叙利亚、土耳其、，阿拉伯联合酋长国、英国和美国。

Two pictures of Iraq’s Highway of Death (Source: Reddit + Amusing Planet)

伊拉克死亡之路的两张照片（来源：Reddit+Amounting Planet）

但美国想摧毁的不仅是伊拉克军队。大部分爆炸都是为了破坏或摧毁伊拉克的基础设施。在美国停止最初的敌对行动后，一名记者描述了伊拉克平民面临的情况：“这片曾经拥有高识字率和先进医疗体系的土地遭到了西方的破坏。它的社会结构一塌糊涂，人民得不到基本的生存必需品。袭击目标包括水处理厂、污水处理厂、发电厂、炼油厂和通讯中心。”联合国称，约60%的人口无法定期获得清洁水，80%以上的学校被毁或需要大量维修。其结果是对平民人口造成了绝对的破坏，违反了日内瓦四公约和所有国际法，这些法律禁止故意以经济和社会设施为目标。

我们中的许多人都看过消防队员试图扑灭科威特油井大火的戏剧性IMAX电影。我们都听说，萨达姆被赶出科威特时怒气冲冲地放火焚烧了科威特的油井。但在战争结束后的几年里，美国退伍军人协会收到了许多退伍军人的报告，称美国军队对油井大火负有责任。他们详细叙述了特种部队如何在撤退的伊拉克部队后面行动，却在前进的美国人前面行动，以及他们如何在井口设置炸药和燃烧弹，随着美军的推进，他们的指挥官远程引爆了井口。他们声称，他们被命令这样做是为了影响公众舆论，消除人们对萨达姆政权邪恶性的怀疑。

他们声称，在宣布伊拉克战争的一个月前，美国国务卿詹姆斯·贝克签署了一份现已解密的美军报告，详细描述了科威特将被摧毁的范围有多广，油井将如何起火，以及如何重建“比以前更好”。他们的观点是，只有布什总统和他内部的企业朋友圈子，比如哈里伯顿，才能从科威特石油设施遭受的破坏中获利。他们声称，巨大的个人财富是通过摧毁和重建科威特的石油基础设施获得的。石油消防公司、建筑和服务公司，以及更多的公司，从这场巨大的欺诈中赚了数百亿美元。

调查记者乔恩·拉波波特在事件发生后亲自采访了美国士兵，他在一篇文章中写道：这位退伍军人。各国，“我们被召集到简报帐篷里，一位我起初以为是美国人的绅士开始向我们介绍燃烧油田的行动。 [12]”我很担心，因为他没有穿美国制服和徽章。这可能还意味着，焚烧油田的行动在最高级别上不是美国政府的阴谋，尽管它使用了一小群美国士兵。简报者可能代表了更隐晦的权力参与者。“这让我们回到伦敦金融城的银行家那里，这场暴行肯定就是在那里发生的。

在完成了破坏伊拉克的第一步之后，美国又通过联合国推行了一系列经济制裁措施，意在扼杀伊拉克，让其具备最终接管的条件。最不人道的行为之一是在入侵期间袭击伊拉克的供水和净水系统。然后，制裁措施适用于所有更换的供水和部件，以确保伊拉克无法修复其供水系统。这一过程是有意计划的，目的是降低该国的供水质量，并阻止民众获得清洁水。幼儿最容易感染污染水源造成的疾病，据广泛估计，在短短几年内，这一水源造成的死亡人数超过50万名儿童。美国人对生命损失的冷漠令人难以置信。

在这里，我不能不提到时任美国国务卿马德琳·奥尔布赖特，她是世界历史上最多产的婴儿杀手，曾策划破坏伊拉克的供水设施，并对其实施制裁，以阻止更换或修复，她在两次世界大战期间一手造成至少50万名婴儿死亡，更不用说老年人和体弱者了。在一次著名的电视采访中，莱斯利·斯塔尔在电视节目《60分钟》中告诉奥尔布赖特，50多万儿童因为她设计和实施的制裁而死亡，她回答说，她认为“代价是值得的”。换句话说，在培养一个国家去征服时，杀死50万儿童只是一个小小的代价。 [13] 你可以在YouTube上观看这位疯狂的精神病患者发表的著名声明。[14]

值得一提的是，《纽约时报》为奥尔布赖特对人类的贡献写了一篇热情洋溢的讣告，就像对所有犹太人一样，不管他们犯下了怎样的人类暴行。“崇拜者们说她有明星气质，散发出实用性、多才多艺和令人耳目一新的世界主义风格。她身材矮小，风格稳重：剪裁完美，发型完美，胸针上有金色或珍珠的光泽，对行家和眼睛充满乐趣。[15]

最终的胜利发生在9-11事件之前的规划阶段。美国入侵阿富汗后，迅速将目光转向伊拉克，开始了一个标准的美国程序，即利用媒体妖魔化一个它打算入侵的国家。美国人和全世界不断听到关于伊拉克政府罪恶的故事，每个故事都比另一个更可怕。世界被告知伊拉克拥有核武器，可以在15分钟内向以色列和美国发射，伊拉克拥有大量生物和化学武器，并准备在先发制人的战争中释放这些武器。每一个说法后来都被证明是谎言，完全是捏造的，但媒体的攻击让美国民众和西方世界的大部分人转而反对伊拉克，这足以成为再次“政权更迭”的理由。

最后一场伊拉克战争最初是为了找到伊拉克的核武器并解除其武装，后来被证明是错误的，故事被修改为“向伊拉克引入民主”。的确是民主。很难举出一个国家如此彻底地摧毁另一个国家、摧毁和扭曲其社会和人性的几乎每个方面的其他历史例子。几乎所有的公共服务，包括电力、水和卫生系统，几乎都被美国的轰炸彻底摧毁，这些轰炸是故意摧毁的。此外，八年的经济制裁被美国称为“人类历史上对一个国家实施的最普遍的制裁”，给伊拉克人民生活的方方面面造成了广泛的破坏。美国有轰炸国家的长期记录，将整个城市夷为平地，摧毁基础设施，摧毁那些没有被炸弹炸死的人的生命。之后什么也不做来修复损失，留下一个支离破碎、贫困的人口在美国跨国公司开始掠夺国家资源的同时，尽其所能地自力更生。伊拉克只是美国和犹太复国主义者对战争和利润的无限渴望的又一个例子。

入侵和破坏事件发生后，为了转移国际社会的一些批评，美国政府声称自己受到了“坏情报的误导”，CIA、以色列摩萨德、NSA和其他机构只是误读了事实，得出了错误的结论。当然，那些毫无正当理由地承认入侵和摧毁了一个国家的行为，并没有导致道歉或撤离。相反，美国只是继续其计划中的殖民进程。不过，平心而论，乔治·布什确实收到了至少一点“坏情报”，那就是犹太新保守派和犹太复国主义者保罗·沃尔福威茨保证，伊拉克的石油储备将在入侵后两三年内支付战争费用。当然，沃尔福威茨大错特错了，但他获得了世界银行行长的职位，这是对他出色工作的回报。

美国对萨达姆驱逐寻找所谓大规模杀伤性武器的联合国武器核查人员的说法大加赞赏，但他从未做过这样的事。视察组负责人后来受到广泛批评，因为他在美国袭击之前命令视察人员离开巴格达。伊拉克指控武器核查人员被用作间谍，为已经计划好的美国入侵做准备，这一指控有充分的文件证明是非常真实的。联合国和美国所谓的武器核查人员并不是在搜索他们已经知道不存在的东西，而是在为美军进行先期侦察，为美国想要摧毁的基础设施获取准确的GPS坐标。关于美国入侵伊拉克的一切都是谎言，是以最肮脏的方式犯下的，西方媒体完全遵从了这些谎言。

如果我不拍这张照片，像我妈妈这样的人会认为他们在电视上看到的是战争。.

我们让伊拉克遭受了战争史上最激烈的空袭。我们故意摧毁了他们的民用和工业基础设施。我们对他们实施了经济制裁，每个月造成5000人死亡。我们的政府在这件事上撒了谎，总的来说，媒体要么保持沉默，要么忠实地充当他们的喉舌。我们的政府及其媒体一家媒体竭尽所能不让公众知道真相。“在战后访问伊拉克的西方人中，约翰·皮尔格制作了一部名为《付出代价》的著名电影，米丽亚姆·赖尔制作了一部名为《伊拉克的声音》的伟大纪录片，记录了伊拉克的可怕情况，但没有美国电视台播放她的电影。美国媒体对伊拉克被刑事摧毁的支持是彻底的。我们向他们发射了近100万发贫铀弹

最后，正如威廉·布卢姆巧妙地说的那样，“我们必须记住，由于这场可爱的小战争，超过一半的伊拉克人口要么死亡、致残、遭受创伤，要么被关在美国和伊拉克人满为患的监狱里，要么在国内流离失所，要么在国外流亡。”。“发生在伊拉克的事情是未来战争的模板，极其简单。摧毁工业化平民的生活方式，摧毁供水和卫生系统，摧毁电力供应，冻结他们的资产，用制裁孤立这个国家，封住媒体的嘴，然后在整个国家陷入流行病、贫困和饥饿的时候坐下来放松如果未来一代人出现，你会发现他们更具可塑性，更容易接受你的“影响力”。“伊拉克人民清楚地看到，他们的福祉和文化的最大敌人是西方价值体系本身。他们知道成为西方人道主义轰炸的目标、美国政策的公然残酷和疯狂意味着什么。

Defense Secretary Richard B. Cheney, at a breakfast with reporters, said every Iraqi target was “perfectly legitimate” and added, “If I had to do it over again, I would do exactly the same thing.” Source

国防部长理查德·B·切尼在与记者共进早餐时说，伊拉克的每一个目标都是“完全合法的”，并补充说，“如果我必须再做一次，我也会做同样的事情。来源

伊拉克的故事比这里描述的要多得多。接下来的两章提供了更充分的描述。

Mr. Romanoff’s writing has been translated into 32 languages and his articles posted on more than 150 foreign-language news and politics websites in more than 30 countries, as well as more than 100 English language platforms. Larry Romanoff is a retired management consultant and businessman. He has held senior executive positions in international consulting firms, and owned an international import-export business. He has been a visiting professor at Shanghai’s Fudan University, presenting case studies in international affairs to senior EMBA classes. Mr. Romanoff lives in Shanghai and is currently writing a series of ten books generally related to China and the West. He is one of the contributing authors to Cynthia McKinney’s new anthology ‘When China Sneezes’. (Chapt. 2 — Dealing with Demons).

罗曼诺夫的作品 他的文章被翻译成32种语言，发表在30多个国家的150多个外语新闻和政治网站上，以及100多个英语平台上。拉里·罗曼诺夫是一名退休的管理顾问和商人。他曾在国际咨询公司担任高级管理职位，并拥有国际进出口业务。他曾在上海复旦大学担任客座教授，向EMBA高级班讲授国际事务方面的案例研究。罗曼诺夫住在上海，目前正在撰写一系列十本书，这些书通常与中国和西方有关。他是辛西娅·麦金尼新书集的撰稿人之一。（第二章）。当中国打喷嚏的时候对付恶魔

His full archive can be seen at

他的完整文章库可在以下找到

https://www.bluemoonofshanghai.com/and https://www.moonofshanghai.com/

He can be contacted at:

联系方式如下：

2186604556@qq.com

NOTES

注释

[1] Sheikhdom of Kuwait 科威特酋长国 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheikhdom_of_Kuwait

[2] Kuwait marks 60 years of independence from Britain 科威特独立60周年纪念 https://gulfnews.com/world/gulf/kuwait/kuwait-marks-60-years-of-independence-from-britain-1.80044884

[3] Independence for Kuwait 科威特独立 https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/1961/jun/20/fromthearchive

[4] APRIL GLASPIE MADE STATEMENT TO PRES. HUSSEIN LEADING TO FIRST IRAQI-AMERICAN WAR 今年4月，格拉斯皮向侯赛因总统发表声明，导致了第一场伊美战争 https://www.americanussr.com/american-ussr-april-glaspie.html#:~:text=April%20Glaspie%20April%20Glaspie%20obtained%20notoriety%20for%20mis-advising,with%20his%20people%20lasting%20more%20than%2030%20years.

[25] Gulf War Documents: Meeting between Saddam Hussein and US Ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie 海湾战争文件：萨达姆·侯赛因与美国驻伊拉克大使4月格拉斯比的会晤

https://www.globalresearch.ca/gulf-war-documents-meeting-between-saddam-hussein-and-ambassador-to-iraq-april-glaspie/31145

[6] . . . AND THE TALE OF A TRANSCRIPT …还有文字记录的故事 https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1990/09/17/and-the-tale-of-a-transcript/21babc92-8514-4f14-a47f-9b0ef4a637fe/

[7] CONFRONTATION IN THE GULF; U.S. Gave Iraq Little Reason Not to Mount Kuwait Assault 海湾冲突；美国没有给伊拉克什么理由不登上科威特的马背 https://www.nytimes.com/1990/09/23/world/confrontation-in-the-gulf-us-gave-iraq-little-reason-not-to-mount-kuwait-assault.html

[8] Iraqi Forces Were Annihilated While Retreating On ‘The Highway Of Death’ 25 Years Ago 25年前，伊拉克军队在“死亡之路”上撤退时被歼灭 https://jalopnik.com/iraqi-forces-were-annihilated-while-retreating-on-the-1754611524

[9] Highway of Death, a tragic memory of the Gulf War 死亡之路，海湾战争的悲剧记忆 https://www.roadstotravel.net/iraq-highway-of-death/

[10] Remembering the Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait and the Highway of Death 回忆伊拉克从科威特撤军和死亡之路 https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20220225-remembering-the-iraqi-withdrawal-from-kuwait-and-the-highway-of-death/

[11] Highway of Death, the result of American forces bombing retreating Iraqi forces, Kuwait, 1991 死亡之路，美军轰炸撤退的伊拉克部队的结果，科威特，1991年 https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/highway-death-in-pictures-1991/

[12] Gulf War Vet Group: US Troops Set Kuwait Oil Fires 海湾战争兽医组织：美军纵火焚烧科威特石油 https://ratical.org/ratville/JFK/JohnJudge/linkscopy/USsetFires.html#:~:text=The%20American%20Gulf%20War%20Veterans%20Association%2C%20led%20by,Kuwait%20at%20the%20end%20of%20Gulf%20War%20One

[13] Let’s remember Madeleine Albright for who she really was 让我们记住玛德琳·奥尔布赖特是谁 https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2022/3/25/lets-remember-madeleine-albright-as-who-she-really-was

[14] Madeleine Albright says 500,000 dead Iraqi Children was “worth it” wins Medal of Freedom 马德琳·奥尔布赖特说，50万名死亡的伊拉克儿童“值得”获得Fre勋章 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omnskeu-puE

[15] Madeleine Albright, First Woman to Serve as Secretary of State, Dies at 84 第一位担任国务卿的女性马德琳·奥尔布赖特去世，享年84岁 https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/23/us/madeleine-albright-dead.html

123...37 Page 2 of 37

16 Jan 1939 1939年1月16日	Austrian physicists Lise Meitner and Otto Frisch successfully achieved nuclear fission in an experiment in Sweden. 奥地利物理学家莉丝·梅特纳和奥托·弗里施在瑞典的一次实验中成功地实现了核裂变。
25 Jan 1939 1939年1月25日	Uranium atom was split for the first time at Columbia University in the United States. 铀原子在美国哥伦比亚大学首次被分裂。
26 Jan 1939 1939年1月26日	President Franklin Roosevelt approved atomic research efforts in the US. 富兰克林·罗斯福总统批准了美国的原子能研究工作。
2 Aug 1939 1939年8月2日	In a letter written by Leó Szilárd and signed by Albert Einstein, the two physicists urged US President Franklin Roosevelt to allocate funding for atomic weapons research. 两位物理学家在一封由莱斯拉德撰写、阿尔伯特·爱因斯坦签名的信中敦促美国总统富兰克林·罗斯福为原子武器研究拨款。
11 Oct 1939 1939年10月11日	Leó Szilárd and Albert Einstein’s letter (sent on 2 Aug 1939) reached Franklin Roosevelt, who agreed to establish a committee for the research of nuclear energy as a weapon. This led to Roosevelt’s decision to establish the Uranium Advisory Committee shortly after. 莱斯拉德和阿尔伯特·爱因斯坦的信（1939年8月2日发出）传到了富兰克林·罗斯福手中，罗斯福同意成立一个研究核能作为武器的委员会。此后不久，罗斯福决定成立铀咨询委员会。
21 Oct 1939 1939年10月21日	The Uranium Advisory Committee in the United States, headed by Lyman Briggs of the National Bureau of Standards, met for the first time. The committee had a budget of US$6,000 at this time. 由美国国家标准局的莱曼·布里格斯领导的美国铀咨询委员会举行了首次会议。委员会当时的预算为6000美元。
10 Apr 1940 1940年4月10日	Henry Tizard established the Military Application of Uranium Detonation (MAUD) Committee in the United Kingdom to investigate the feasibility of an atomic weapon. 亨利·蒂扎德在英国成立了铀爆炸军事应用委员会，以调查原子武器的可行性。
1 Jul 1940 1940年7月1日	The responsibility for nuclear fission research in the United States was transferred to the National Defense Research Committee under Vannevar Bush. 美国核裂变研究的责任移交给了瓦内瓦尔·布什领导的国防研究委员会。
23 Feb 1941 1941年2月23日	Dr. Glenn T. Seaborg chemically identified the recently discovered new element Plutonium in the 60-inch cyclotron at the University of California at Berkeley, California, United States. 美国加州大学伯克利分校的Glenn T.Seaborg博士用化学方法鉴定了最近在60英寸回旋加速器中发现的新元素钚。
26 Feb 1941 1941年2月26日	American scientists Glenn Seaborg and Arthur Wahl discovered Plutonium. 美国科学家格伦·西伯格和阿瑟·瓦尔发现了钚。
17 May 1941 1941年5月17日	Arthur Compton and the United States National Academy of Sciences published a report noting the success rate of developing an atomic weapon was favorable. On the same day, Vannevar Bush created the Office of Scientific Research and Development (OSRD). 阿瑟·康普顿和美国国家科学院发表了一份报告，指出研制原子武器的成功率是有利的。同一天，范尼瓦尔·布什创立了科学研究与发展办公室。
2 Jul 1941 1941年7月2日	The British Military Application of Uranium Detonation (MAUD) Committee assigned the responsibility of writing its final draft of the report of its findings on the development of atomic weapons to James Chadwick. 英国军事应用铀爆炸委员会将撰写其关于原子武器发展的调查结果报告的最终草稿的责任交给了詹姆斯·查德威克。
15 Jul 1941 1941年7月15日	The British Military Application of Uranium Detonation (MAUD) Committee issued its final report on atomic weapons. 英国军事应用铀爆炸委员会发布了关于原子武器的最终报告。
17 Sep 1941 1941年9月17日	At a conference in Copenhagen, Denmark, German physicist Werner Heisenberg warned his mentor Niels Bohr that Germany had embarked on atomic weapon research and gave him a drawing of a reactor as proof. 在丹麦哥本哈根举行的一次会议上，德国物理学家维尔纳·海森堡警告他的导师尼尔斯·玻尔，德国已经开始进行原子武器研究，并给了他一张反应堆的图纸作为证据。
3 Oct 1941 1941年10月3日	The official copy of the British Military Application of Uranium Detonation (MAUD) Committee Report, written by James Chadwick, reached Vannevar Bush. 詹姆斯·查德威克撰写的英国铀爆炸军事应用委员会报告的正式副本送达了瓦内瓦尔·布什。
9 Oct 1941 1941年10月9日	Vannevar Bush met with President Franklin Roosevelt and Vice-President Henry Wallace about the progress of the Uranium Committee. Bush described the progress of the British Military Application of Uranium Detonation (MAUD) Committee and what was known about what progress the Germans were making. Roosevelt approved an expedited atomic program and a Top Policy Group that included Wallace and Bush to control it. 瓦内瓦尔·布什与富兰克林·罗斯福总统和亨利·华莱士副总统就铀委员会的进展进行了会晤。布什描述了英国军事应用铀爆炸委员会的进展，以及人们对德国人正在取得的进展的了解。罗斯福批准了一项快速原子能计划，以及一个由华莱士和布什组成的高层政策小组来控制该计划。
6 Dec 1941 1941年12月6日	Vannevar Bush and Arthur Compton assigned Harold Urey to develop research into gaseous diffusion as a uranium enrichment method and Ernest Lawrence to investigate electromagnetic separation methods. 范尼瓦尔·布什和阿瑟·康普顿指派哈罗德·乌里开展气体扩散作为铀浓缩方法的研究，欧内斯特·劳伦斯则负责研究电磁分离方法。
18 Dec 1941 1941年12月18日	The S-1 Section of the United States Office of Scientific Research and Development, the forerunner of the Manhattan Project, held its first meeting. 曼哈顿计划的前身美国科学研究与发展办公室的S-1部门举行了首次会议。
25 Jun 1942 1942年6月25日	The US Office of Scientific Research and Development (OSRD) S-1 Executive Committee held a meeting to discuss the location of manufacturing facilities for the Manhattan Project. 美国科学研究与发展办公室S-1执行委员会举行了一次会议，讨论曼哈顿项目的制造设施位置。
1 Jul 1942 1942年7月1日	Chief Engineer of the Manhattan District Colonel James C. Marshall and his deputy Lieutenant Colonel Kenneth Nichols surveyed the Knoxville, Tennessee, United States region for suitable sites for Manhattan Project manufacturing, but they were not entirely satisfied by the sites presented to them by the Tennessee Valley Authority. 曼哈顿区的总工程师詹姆斯·C·马歇尔上校和他的副中校肯尼斯·尼科尔斯在美国田纳西州诺克斯维尔地区进行了调查，寻找适合曼哈顿项目制造的场地，但他们对田纳西河谷管理局提供给他们的场地并不完全满意。
24 Jul 1942 1942年7月24日	Oppenhheimer was selected to head the atomic bomb research efforts. 奥本海默被选为原子弹研究工作的负责人。
13 Sep 1942 1942年9月13日	At a meeting of the S-1 Section Executive Committee of the United States Office of Scientific Research and Development (OSRD), a decision was reached to build a laboratory to study fast neutrons. This study was to be codenamed Project Y. 在美国科学研究与发展办公室S-1部门执行委员会的一次会议上，决定建造一个研究快中子的实验室。这项研究的代号是Y项目。
17 Sep 1942 1942年9月17日	Leslie Groves was given charge of overseeing the Manhattan Project. 莱斯利·格罗夫斯负责监督曼哈顿项目。
24 Sep 1942 1942年9月24日	Leslie Groves purchased 210 square kilometers (52,000 acres) of land in Tennessee, United States. Also known as Site X, it would soon become the Oak Ridge site of the Manhattan Project. 莱斯利·格罗夫斯在美国田纳西州购买了210平方公里（5.2万英亩）的土地。它也被称为X地块，很快就会成为曼哈顿项目的橡树岭地块。
26 Sep 1942 1942年9月26日	The Manhattan Project was given permission to use the highest wartime priority rating by the United States War Production Board. 曼哈顿项目得到了美国战争生产委员会的许可，可以使用战时最高优先级。
28 Sep 1942 1942年9月28日	The Ohio River Division of the US Army Corps of Engineers opened up an office in Harriman, Tennessee, United States to begin acquiring land, by purchase and the implementation of Eminent Domain, for Site X of the Manhattan Project. 美国陆军工程兵团俄亥俄河分部在美国田纳西州哈里曼开设了一个办公室，通过购买和实施征用权，开始为曼哈顿项目的X地块收购土地。
6 Oct 1942 1942年10月6日	The District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, United States issued an order to take possession of land for Site X of the Manhattan Project. 美国田纳西州东区地方法院发布命令，征用曼哈顿项目X地块的土地。
15 Oct 1942 1942年10月15日	Robert Oppenheimer was appointed, by Leslie Groves, to coordinate the scientific research of the Manhattan Project at Site Y, a location yet to be finalized. 莱斯利·格罗夫斯任命罗伯特·奥本海默负责协调位于Y地点的曼哈顿项目的科学研究工作。Y地点尚未确定。
6 Nov 1942 1942年11月6日	Groves and Oppenheimer visited Los Alamos, New Mexico, United States and agreed that it was suitable as the location for Site Y for the Manhattan Project. 格罗夫斯和奥本海默访问了美国新墨西哥州的洛斯阿拉莫斯市，并一致认为该市适合作为曼哈顿项目Y地块的选址。
2 Dec 1942 1942年12月2日	Enrico Fermi’s atomic reactor Chicago Pile-1 at the University of Chicago, Illinois, United States initiated the world’s first self-sustaining nuclear chain reaction. 美国伊利诺伊州芝加哥大学的恩里科·费米原子反应堆芝加哥一号堆启动了世界上第一个自我维持的核连锁反应。
18 Feb 1943 1943年2月18日	The construction for a large electromagnetic separation plant for enriching uranium, codenamed Y-12, began construction at Manhattan Project’s Oak Ridge site in Tennessee, United States. 一座代号为Y-12的大型铀浓缩电磁分离厂的建设始于曼哈顿项目位于美国田纳西州橡树岭的工厂。
28 Feb 1943 1943年2月28日	Construction began on the first full-scale plutonium production reactor in the world at Hanford, Washington, United States. 世界上第一座全尺寸钚生产反应堆在美国华盛顿州汉福德开工建设。
1 Apr 1943 1943年4月1日	Access to the Clinton Engineer Works facilities in Tennessee, United States became strictly controlled. 克林顿工程师工厂在美国田纳西州的设施受到严格控制。
19 Aug 1943 1943年8月19日	As discussed in the Quebec Conference between US President Franklin Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, British scientists, including Klaus Fuchs, were to join the Manhattan Project. 正如美国总统富兰克林·罗斯福和英国首相温斯顿·丘吉尔在魁北克会议上讨论的那样，包括克劳斯·福斯在内的英国科学家将加入曼哈顿项目。
4 Oct 1943 1943年10月4日	Construction began for the first nuclear reactor at the Hanford Site of the Manhattan Project in Washington, United States. 位于美国华盛顿的曼哈顿项目汉福德的第一座核反应堆开工建设。
3 Mar 1944 1944年3月3日	An American B-29 bomber dropped a dummy atomic bomb at Muroc Army Air Force Base in California, United States at the altitude of 24,000 feet. The test bomb considerably damaged the aircraft’s bomb bay doors as it exited the aircraft. 一架美国B-29轰炸机在美国加利福尼亚州的穆洛克陆军空军基地的24000英尺高空投下了一枚假原子弹。试验炸弹在离开飞机时严重损坏了飞机的舱门。
5 Apr 1944 1944年4月5日	At Los Alamos, New Mexico, United States, Emilio Segrè received the first sample of reactor-refined plutonium from Oak Ridge, Tennessee, United States. He would soon discover that the spontaneous fission rate of this plutonium was too high for use in a gun-type fission weapon. 在美国新墨西哥州洛斯阿拉莫斯，埃米利奥·塞格雷收到了来自美国田纳西州橡树岭的第一批反应堆精炼钚样本。他很快就会发现，这种钚的自发裂变率太高，无法用于枪式裂变武器。
4 Jul 1944 1944年7月4日	J. Robert Oppenheimer revealed Emilio Segrè’s final measurements to the Manhattan Project scientists at Los Alamos, New Mexico, which concluded that the “Thin Man” design for a gun-type plutonium weapon was not feasible. K. J·罗伯特·奥本海默向位于新墨西哥州洛斯阿拉莫斯的曼哈顿项目科学家透露了埃米利奥·塞格雷的最终测量结果，该项目的科学家得出结论认为，枪式钚武器的“瘦人”设计不可行。
20 Jul 1944 1944年7月20日	The staff at the Los Alamos site of the Manhattan Project shifted focus to work on the implosion mechanism for the atomic bomb. 曼哈顿项目洛斯阿拉莫斯基地的工作人员将注意力转移到了原子弹的内爆机制上。
25 Jul 1944 1944年7月25日	The first preliminary test of the RaLa Experiment was performed by the scientists of the Manhattan Project; it was the first in a series of experiments attempting to create a spherical implosion to detonate a nuclear weapon. RaLa实验的第一个初步测试是由曼哈顿项目的科学家进行的；这是一系列试图制造球形内爆引爆核武器的实验中的第一个。
2 Sep 1944 1944年9月2日	While attempting to unclog a uranium enrichment device at the Philadelphia Navy Yard, Pennsylvania, United States for the Manhattan Project, chemists Peter Bragg, Douglas Meigs, and Arnold Kramish accidentally set of an explosion, which sprayed liquid uranium hexafluoride and hydrofuoric acid on them. Bragg and Meigs were killed, while Kramish and two soldliers, George LeFevre and John Tompkins, were seriously injured. 化学家彼得·布拉格、道格拉斯·梅格斯和阿诺德·克拉米什试图为曼哈顿项目打开美国宾夕法尼亚州费城海军造船厂的铀浓缩装置时，意外引发了爆炸，将液态六氟化铀和氢氟酸喷洒在他们身上。布拉格和梅格斯身亡，克拉米什和两名士兵乔治·莱弗尔和约翰·汤普金斯严重受伤。
22 Sep 1944 1944年9月22日	The first RaLa Experiment of the Manhattan Project with a radioactive source was performed. 曼哈顿项目的第一个RaLa实验是用放射源进行的。
9 Dec 1944 1944年12月9日	The US Army Air Forces established the 509th Composite Group for atomic weapon delivery. 美国陆军航空兵组建了第509合成群，负责发射原子武器。
14 Dec 1944 1944年12月14日	The RaLa Experiment of the Manhattan Project yielded evidence that spherical implosion was possible for compression of the plutonium pit of an atomic bomb. 曼哈顿项目的RaLa实验得出的证据表明，球形内爆可能会压缩原子弹的钚弹芯。
17 Dec 1944 1944年12月17日	The newly established USAAF 509th Composite Group was activated. The group’s mission was to deliver atomic weapons. 新成立的USAAF509th综合小组被激活。该组织的任务是运送原子武器。
7 Jan 1945 1945年1月7日	The RaLa Experiment of the Manhattan Project conducted its first test using exploding bridgewire detonators. 曼哈顿项目的RaLa实验首次使用爆炸桥丝雷管进行了试验。
14 Jan 1945 1945年1月14日	The RaLa Experiment of the Manhattan Project conducted its second test using exploding bridgewire detonators. 曼哈顿项目的RaLa实验使用爆炸桥丝雷管进行了第二次试验。
10 Mar 1945 1945年3月10日	A Japanese Fu-Go balloon came down across electrical lines in Toppenish, Washington causing a power outage. Although not widely known for another ten years, the outage shut down the reactor at the Hanford, Washington facility of the Manhattan Project. Back-up systems quickly restored power but it would take another three days for the reactors to reach full capacity again. A burned balloon envelope, shroud lines, and ballast dropping equipment were recovered from the downed balloon. At almost the same time, another complete Fu-Go balloon bomb grounded near Cold Creek, Washington, very near the Hanford site. 一个日本Fu Go气球从华盛顿托潘尼什的电线上坠落，导致停电。尽管在接下来的十年里没有广为人知，但这起事故关闭了曼哈顿项目位于华盛顿汉福德的核反应堆。备用系统很快恢复了电力供应，但反应堆需要再过三天才能再次满负荷运行。从坠落的气球上找到了一个烧焦的气球外壳、围带和压载物投放设备。几乎与此同时，另一枚完整的Fu Go气球炸弹在华盛顿州Cold Creek附近搁浅，离汉福德核电站非常近。
13 Apr 1945 1945年4月13日	More than 300 American B-29 bombers attacked various targets in and near Tokyo, Japan. The smaller of the two cyclotrons at the Riken Institute was destroyed. 300多架美国B-29轰炸机袭击了日本东京及其附近的多个目标。理研研究所的两颗回旋加速器中较小的一颗被摧毁了。
11 Jun 1945 1945年6月11日	James Franck and other Metallurgical Laboratory scientists issued the Franck Report, arguing for a demonstration of an atomic bomb before using it against an enemy target. 詹姆斯·弗兰克和其他冶金实验室科学家发表了弗兰克的报告，主张在对敌方目标使用原子弹之前先演示一枚原子弹。
1 Jul 1945 1945年7月1日	The civilian Monsanto company took over the operation of the Clinton Laboratories at Site X of the Manhattan Project in Tennessee, United States. 民用孟山都公司接管了位于美国田纳西州曼哈顿项目X地点的克林顿实验室的运营。
16 Jul 1945 1945年7月16日	In Operation Trinity, the Americans successfully detonated an atomic bomb at Alamogordo Bombing Range in New Mexico, United States. The test blast created temperatures 10,000 times the surface temperature of the sun and was felt 200 miles away. The explosion was the equivalent of 20,000 tons of TNT and throws a column of fire and smoke 35,000 feet into the night sky. The authorities hid the blast by claiming that an ammunition dump had gone up. 在三一行动中，美国人成功地在美国新墨西哥州阿拉莫戈多爆炸场引爆了一枚原子弹。试验爆炸产生的温度是太阳表面温度的1万倍，在200英里外就能感觉到。这次爆炸相当于2万吨TNT炸药的爆炸，向3.5万英尺（约合3.5万米）的夜空投掷了一道火柱和烟雾。当局声称一个弹药堆已经被炸毁，以此掩盖了爆炸。
24 Jul 1945 1945年7月24日	US President Harry Truman informed Soviet leader Joseph Stalin that the United States had successfully constructed atomic weapons. Stalin showed surprise, but in actuality he had already learned this through the Soviet intelligence network. 美国总统哈里·杜鲁门告诉苏联领导人约瑟夫·斯大林，美国已经成功地制造了原子武器。斯大林表现出了惊讶，但实际上他已经通过苏联情报网了解到了这一点。
25 Jul 1945 1945年7月25日	While at Potsdam, Germany, US President Harry Truman issued instructions for the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, Kokura, Niigata, or Nagasaki in Japan; the target date was set for some time after 3 Aug. 在德国波茨坦，美国总统哈里·杜鲁门发布了对日本广岛、小仓、新泻或长崎进行原子弹轰炸的指示；目标日期定在8月3日之后一段时间。
6 Aug 1945 1945年8月6日	Hiroshima, Japan was destroyed by the first atomic bomb, “Little Boy”. About 70,000 to 80,000 were killed immediately, while about 70,000 were injured. 日本广岛被第一颗原子弹“小男孩”摧毁。约7万至8万人立即死亡，约7万人受伤。
9 Aug 1945 1945年8月9日	B-29 bomber Bockscar dropped the atomic bomb “Fat Man” on the city of Nagasaki, Japan, killing 40,000 to 75,000 immediately. B-29 bombers The Great Artiste and Big Stink flew on Bockscar’s wing. The Great Artiste carried scientific measuring equipment and Bing Stink carried photography equipment. B-29轰炸机Bockscar在日本长崎投下了原子弹“胖子”，立即造成4万至7万人死亡。B-29轰炸机《伟大的艺术家》和《大臭味》在博克斯卡尔的机翼上飞行。这位伟大的艺术家携带科学的测量设备，冰臭携带摄影设备。
12 Aug 1945 1945年8月12日	The Smyth Report, written by American physicist Henry DeWolf Smyth, with the history of the development of the atomic weapons, was released to the public. 这份由美国物理学家亨利·德沃尔夫·斯迈思撰写的报告向公众公布了原子武器的发展历史。
16 Oct 1945 1945年10月16日	Robert Oppenheimer resigned as the director of the Los Alamos, New Mexico, United States facility of the Manhattan Project. 罗伯特·奥本海默辞去了曼哈顿项目在美国新墨西哥州洛斯阿拉莫斯工厂的主任职务。
17 Oct 1945 1945年10月17日	Norris Bradbury succeeded Robert Oppenheimer as the director of the Los Alamos, New Mexico, United States facility of the Manhattan Project. 诺里斯·布拉德伯里接替罗伯特·奥本海默担任曼哈顿项目的美国设施新墨西哥州洛斯阿拉莫斯的主任。
10 Nov 1945 1945年11月10日	United States Secretary of War Robert Patterson ordered all cyclotrons in Japan destroyed. 美国国务卿罗伯特·帕特森下令销毁日本的所有回旋加速器。
24 Nov 1945 1945年11月24日	Per orders of United States Secretary of War Robert Patterson, all cyclotrons in Japan were destroyed. 根据美国国务卿罗伯特·帕特森的命令，日本所有的回旋加速器都被摧毁了。
1 Mar 1946 1946年3月1日	Private medical practices were allowed at Site X of the Manhattan Project in Tennessee, United States. 美国田纳西州曼哈顿项目的X地点允许私人执业。
10 Sep 1946 1946年9月10日	Union Carbide, the civilian firm charged with the running of plants K-25, Y-12, and X-10 at Site X of the Manhattan Project in Tennessee, United States, signed a contract with the union United Chemical Workers. 联合碳化物公司是一家民用公司，负责在美国田纳西州曼哈顿项目的X地点运营K-25、Y-12和X-10工厂。该公司与联合化工工人联合会签署了一份合同。
18 Dec 1946 1946年12月18日	Monsanto, the civilian firm charged with the running of the Clinton Laboratories at Site X of the Manhattan Project in Tennessee, United States, signed a contract with the union Atomic Trades and Labor Council. 孟山都是一家民用公司，负责管理位于美国田纳西州曼哈顿项目X地点的克林顿实验室。孟山都与美国联邦原子能贸易和劳工委员会签署了一份合同。
31 Dec 1946 1946年12月31日	The Manhattan Project was brought to a close. 曼哈顿项目结束了。
1 Jan 1947 1947年1月1日	The Atomic Energy Act of 1946, signed into American law by US President Harry Truman on 1 Aug 1946, came into effect. Manhattan Project was thus turned over to the newly established civilian United States Atomic Energy Commission. 1946年8月1日，美国总统哈里·杜鲁门签署了1946年的《原子能法》，并将其纳入美国法律。曼哈顿项目因此被移交给了新成立的民用美国原子能委员会。
1 Mar 1949 1949年3月1日	The military hospital at the Oak Ridge site of the Manhattan Project in Tennessee, United States was transferred to civilian control by the Roanne-Anderson Company, a subsidiary of the Turner Construction Company. 位于美国田纳西州曼哈顿项目橡树岭工地的军事医院由特纳建筑公司的子公司罗安·安德森公司移交给文职控制。
19 Mar 1949 1949年3月19日	The residential and commercial sections of Oak Ridge, Tennessee, United States were opened to public access for the first time. 美国田纳西州橡树岭的住宅和商业区首次向公众开放。 Copyright © Larry Romanoff, Blue Moon of Shanghai, Moon of Shanghai, 2023 版权所有（2023年）拉里·罗曼诺夫上海的蓝月亮上海之月

本杰明·富尔福德每周地缘政治与分析的新闻通讯2023年4月17日

CN– LARRY ROMANOFF: 原子弹——曼哈顿计划

原子弹——曼哈顿计划

本杰明·富尔福德每周地缘政治与分析的新闻通讯2023年4月10日

CN — LARRY ROMANOFF: 民主，最危险的宗教 — 第15部分——中国不是西方

CN — LARRY ROMANOFF: 民主，最危险的宗教 — 第八部分——中国的民主实验

Democracy, The Most Dangerous Religion

民主，最危险的宗教

Part 8 – China’s Democracy Experiments

第八部分——中国的民主实验

CN — LARRY ROMANOFF: 民主，最危险的宗教 — 第三部分-选择政府领导人

民主，最危险的宗教

第三部分-选择政府领导人

CN — LARRY ROMANOFF: 伊拉克、科威特和海湾战争

伊拉克、科威特和海湾战争

本杰明·富尔福德每周地缘政治与分析的新闻通讯2023年4月3日

CN — LARRY ROMANOFF: 利比亚的悲剧

利比亚的悲剧

本杰明·富尔福德每周地缘政治与分析的新闻通讯2023年3月27日