關於 states of deprivation ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

Don’t Be Naive! Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is Standing on the Side Against Human Civilization
　
Peaceful world order after WWII had been established upon the philosophy worshiping multilateralism. The cultural basis supporting such multilateralism contained an imagination believing in the ultimate good of the respect for diversity.
　
The Rise of China and the Naivete of EU
　
However, as time progressed into the Post-Cold War era of the 90's, globalization in trade became the dominant trend. Following the global embrace of multilateralism and respect for diversity, it was believed that China would have been influenced by open and positive values once she had participated in this big family of global trade. Indeed, China took advantage of its role as the "world factory" and gained a huge economic leap forward. After China joined the WTO in 2000, within seventeen to eighteen years, China had grown nine-fold compared in terms of its aggregate economic volume. Furthermore, it surpassed Germany in 2005 and Japan between 2009 and 2010, becoming the second-largest economy in the world.
　
In particular, due to the global financial crisis derived from the subprime mortgage in 2007 and Lehman Brothers' bankruptcy in 2008 in the United States, the PIGGS countries turned into victims in Europe. China thus took advantage of this crisis to expand its power, bridging China’s role as depicted in Hu JinTao's "China's peaceful rise" to that in Xi JinPing's "China dream." Finally, China has revealed its ambition to compete for the position as a world leader and a planner of a new world order. The United States has finally, recently woken up to this nightmare of Xi, who has long intended to use China's almighty economic power to achieve his political agenda and hegemony. Unfortunately, many EU countries who consider themselves as advanced, civilized, pro-human rights and respectful to diversification, such as Germany and France, still fail, or refuse, to see the CCP regime’s true color and remain extremely naive towards it.
　
Repulsion towards Vulgarity, Tolerance towards Violence
　
Ironically, the two leading EU countries, Germany and France, prefer a dictatorial emperor, Xi, over Trump elected by the Americans with their ballots. The two countries do not shy away from showing them disgusted by Trump’s vulgar behaviors, but reluctantly show intolerance towards Xi’s cruelty and dictatorship. As a result, the EU countries develop inconceivable and mysterious stubbornness: they loudly criticize countries practicing death penalty based on their own judicial system; however, they are generous and subdued when it comes to the violence happening in HongKong where the HongKong police and Chinese GongAn basically bypass all applicable, or reasonable, laws. We should find this contrast deeply disturbing.
　
Seeing CCP through the eyes of Mao
　
In fact, these european countries and the western world are deluded by the so-called “respect for diversity.” Let’s use the wisdom of the CCP’s spiritual leader, Mao Ze Dong, as a framework to rethink this diversity concept in civilization. In his work “Correct Handling of Contradictions Between People,” published in 1957, Mao clearly classified social contradictions into “contradictions of two different natures”: “contradictions between ourselves and the enemy” and “internal contradictions among the people”. Contradictions between ourselves and the enemy are antagonistic, for example the contradictions between the exploiting and the exploited classes; but contradictions among people is non-antagonistic. Therefore, the former can not be mediated and resolved, but the latter one can be. Mao further advocated that contradictions between ourselves and the enemy should be resolved by dictatorship, but contradictions between the people should be resolved by a method of “cooperation-criticism-cooperation.” In other words, incompatible contradictions between ourselves and the enemy can only be solved by suppression, but internal contradictions can be softened by cooperation.
　
Civilization and CCP - Two Incompatible Conflicting Systems
　
It is time for us to recognize that CCP, a sovereign of authoritarianism and digital dictatorship, should not have been regarded as a representation of the diversity of human civilization. Diversity should be defined based on a founded premise, i.e., a premise confined with certain agreements and consensus, necessary and beneficial for composing diversity. In fact, the value CCP stands for is against the universally accepted values of the world, just like the “incompatible contradictions between ourselves and the enemy”, as Mao said. As long as the existence of the CCP regime continues, human civilization will continue to be persecuted. It can be seen in the current situation of Hong Kong, where China approved the new bill of national security, thereby destroying the remaining freedom guaranteed to Hong Kongers, and assigned the “secret” police gangs to enforce the so-called “justice”.
　
To see the contracting natures of civilization and the CCP regime, we make an analogy with food. Normally, we respect other people’s choice for food. For instance, Ann prefers rice, Bob prefers noodles, John is a meat lover, Mary only eats seafood, etc. Although those four people have different choices of what they like to eat, they respect each other’s choices of food. However, when Daniel comes over and tells the group that he prefers to eat faeces and needs to be respected for his preference, we can start to see the ridiculousness in it. At first, the four people think eating faeces is a personal choice for Daniel, and Daniel can do whatever he/she wants as long as he/she does it at his/her home. The problem rises when Daniel starts to force other people to eat faeces, while the other four people think faeces is inedible, and should never be served on a plate.
　
The food analogy tells us that the CCP regime is inherently against human civilization. As a reasonable human being could not categorize feces as food, we should not be tricked to believe that the authoritarian regime of China can blend in and contribute to human civilization. The CCP regime is incompatible to human civilization just like we should not consider to eat a meal with feces in it. As the master of CCP, Mao, admitted, one can never resolve the contradiction between the authoritarian regime of China and human civilization. The existence of Chinese authoritarian regime is a symbol for deprivation of human civilization. For us to maintain and preserve human civilization, Chinese authoritarian regime must be eradicated. There is no room for the coexistence of the CCP regime and human civilization.
　　
Draw a Bottom Line to the Respect for Diversity
　
Therefore, among western countries, the United States have started or should start to realize that although diversity needs to be respected and tolerated, a reasonable bottom line should be drawn to such respect. Like what I have mentioned above, rice, noodles, meat, seafood and so on should be viewed as food; however, as we can all reasonably agree, feces should not be a part of the league. The United States is now acting to exclude “feces” from the democratic league and draw a bottom line for respect-worthy diversity. However, leading EU countries are still trapped in their fancy, unconditional acceptance to “respect for diversity.” Such respect is hypocritical, empty and baseless. Now, you should be able to understand why leftards in the EU would vigorously criticize death sentences executed under a legitimate judicial system but remain indifferent to the CCP regime’s merciless, relentless and oppressive killings. Namely, they simply set a wrong premise, including feces as an eligible option for “diversity.” As for those who embrace the CCP regime because of economic benefits, they do not even deserve to be viewed as EU leftards, but merely gold diggers in the EU.
　
--
　
Special Thanks to our supporters in North America for translation🙏

小麗團隊就政府禠奪選舉資格回應，今晚集會見！

【小麗團隊就政府禠奪選舉資格回應】

一、今天小麗團隊收到選舉主任郭偉勳通知，劉小麗 11.25 立法會九龍西補選提名無效，我們強烈譴責！

二、今次補選，是由於政府利用人大釋法，禠奪包括小麗在內 6 名立法會議員資格而出現。小麗今次參與補選要取回的，不單是她自己的議席，也代表著民主陣營對政府粗暴改變選舉結果，踐踏民主選舉強烈的不滿。

三、10 月 2 日，小麗在超過 2,000 名市民提名支持下報名參選。十日以來，選舉主任從未向我們作出任何查詢、或補交任何文件，以確認小麗的政見。選舉主任自行判斷小麗的政治立場，甚至不給予小麗申辯的機會。小麗成為被禠奪議席的 6 人之中，再次參選被拒的第一人，二度 DQ，形同剝奪政治權利終身！

四、過去兩年，香港出現前所未見的「政治紅線」，所謂國家安全與尊嚴凌駕政治、言論、結社、新聞自由。這條「紅線」不斷隨當權者喜好移動，在選舉層面更是將 DQ 常態化，公然違反《基本法》第 26 條「香港特別行政區永久性居民依法享有選舉權和被選舉權」。政府肆意踐踏香港人，尤其是要對傘運以來所催生的新興政治力量，作出全面清算及封殺。

五、香港民主進程停滯不前，但我們更不希望香港再倒退下去，讓一國兩制、高度自治壽終正寢。今次 11.25 九龍西補選，保皇陣營期望再勝一仗，結構性地改變地區直選的形勢，更欲阻止民主派透過這一議席重奪分組點票否決權，讓保皇黨得以再次修改議事規則；如此將進一步閹割立法會監察政府的能力，讓 23 條立法、萬億人工島等政治任務更加暢通無阻。因此，今次補選對香港未來影響深遠，是對抗謊言治港的關鍵一仗。

六、過去幾個月，承蒙各方戰友支持，小麗團隊與各黨派、地區團體建立深厚合作，不間斷落區接觸市民，冀望民主陣營能以最充足的準備、最團結的姿態迎戰 11.25 補選。今日政府禠奪小麗參選資格，只會讓我們更有決心，打贏這場時代之戰。

七、我們在此呼籲所有香港人團結一致、力拼到底，11.25 九龍西補選為民主扳回一城，拒絕謊言，守護香港。我們無權放棄，這場仗我們一定要贏。香港人，贏返次！

小麗團隊
2018 年 10 月 12 日

===

【Siu La's Team Statement in Response to Election Disqualification】

1. Siu Lai’s team received a notice from Franco Kwok Wai-fan, the returning officer today, stating that Lau Siu Lai’s nomination of the Kowloon West by-election of Legislative Council is invalid. We strongly condemn this decision!

2. The by-election is resulted from the NPC’s interpretation of laws called by the government, which deprived the election qualifications of six Legislative Councilors, including Lau Siu Lai. Siu Lai joined the by-election, not just to regain her seat, but also to represent the democratic camp’s grievance against the government’s brutal change of the election results and the trample on democratic election.

3. Siu Lai signed up for the by-election with the nomination of more than 2,000 citizens on October 2. The returning officer had never made enquiries or requested for supplementary documents, to confirm Siu Lai’s political standpoints in the past ten days. The returning officer judged Siu Lai’s political views subjectively and never gave Siu Lai opportunity to defend herself. She became the first one among six to be deprived of her political right twice. It is almost lifetime deprivation of political rights!

4. In the past two years, an unprecedented “political red line” occurred. The so-called national security and dignity override freedom of politic, speech, press, assembly and association. The “red line” continues to adjust with the preferences of those in power. Disqualification became common at election level, which violates the Article 26 of Basic Law that states “Permanent residents of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall have the right to vote and the right to stand for election in accordance with law.” The government wantonly tramples on Hong Kong people. It fully clears and bans the new born political camps uprisen from the Umbrella Movement.

5. The democratization in Hong Kong remains stagnant. We refuse to watch Hong Kong retrogress, with the dying of One Country, Two System and a High degree of Autonomy. In the Kowloon West by-election, the royalists are trying to win another battle, so they can change the situation of direct election structurally. They wish to prevent the democratic camp from regaining the veto power in group vote, so that the royalists could amend the Rules of Procedure again. It would further emasculate the monitoring power of Legislative Council. Political tasks like legislation of Article 23 and HKD 1 trillion artificial island will be carried out without much resistance. Therefore, this by-election has profound significance for Hong Kong’s future. It is a crucial battle to fight against the lies-flooded ruling.

6. In the past months, with the support of all the comrades, Siu Lai’s team has established solid cooperation with different parties and communal organizations, and has frequently visited citizens. We were hoping that the democratic camp can face the 11.25 by-election with the most adequate preparation and unity. The government’s unreasonable disapproval of Siu Lai’s candidacy will only make us more determined to win the battle of an era.

7. We hereby appeal to all Hong Kong People, let’s unite together and fight till the end. We shall bring victory to democracy in the 11.25 Kowloon West by-election. Say no to lies, defend our Hong Kong. We have no way out but to win. Hong Kong people, we shall win!

Siu Lai’s team
October 12, 2018

===

【#緊急集會呼籲 反對無理 DQ 小麗！】

日期｜10 月 13 日（星期六）
時間｜8 PM
地點｜金鐘公民廣場外
主辦｜小麗民主教室、工黨

#小麗二度DQ　#剝奪政治權利終身

【全球聯署：抗議政治篩選 還我選舉權利】 bit.ly/2RN21zw

===

【捐款支持教室】
｜匯豐捐款戶口 817-503592-001
｜信用卡 siulai.hk/donate
｜PayMe 5110 1164

捐款 $1,000 以上請聯絡我們（5110 1164）
提供你的姓名、地址，以便申報

【成為義工】
｜電話 9456 7205
｜網上報名 bit.ly/strivewithsiulai2018

I still don’t understand why they are in dialogue with China

A response to “Why we are in dialogue with China”, the interview that His Eminence Cardinal Parolin gave to Gianni Valente (that is, an interview cooked up between the two).

I read the interview several times, now I read it again (even if the reading repels me) in order to honestly make my comments.

I am grateful to His Eminence for recognizing that “it is legitimate to have different opinions”.

(1)
First of all, we note the insistence with which His Eminence affirms that his point of view and the purpose of his activities are of a pastoral, spiritual, evangelical and faith-based nature, while our thinking and acting is only in a political key.

What we see instead is that he venerates the Ostpolitik diplomacy of his master Casaroli and despises the genuine faith of those who firmly defend the Church founded by Jesus on the Apostles from any interference by secular power.

I will never forget my amazement at reading a report in the Osservatore Romano a few years ago on a speech that he had given where he describes the heroes of the faith in the central European countries under the communist regime (Card. Wyszynsky, Card. Mindszenty and Card. Beran, without mentioning them) as “gladiators”, “people systematically opposed to the government and eager to appear on the political stage”.

(2)
We also note the repeated mention of his compassion for the suffering of our brothers and sisters in China. Crocodile tears! What suffering is he talking about? He knows very well that they are not afraid of poverty, nor the limitation or deprivation of liberty, nor even the loss of life. But he has absolutely no respect for all of this at all (they are “gladiators”!)

He also speaks of wounds that are still open and his intention to treat them by applying “the balm of mercy”. But what wounds is he talking about?

Towards the end of the interview, at one point he says: “To be frank, I will tell you: I am also convinced that part of the suffering experienced by the Church in China is not so much due to the will of individuals as to the objective complexity of the situation”.

So he knows very well that in the Church in China it is not (if not infrequently) a case of personal offenses or resentments, but persecution by an atheistic totalitarian power. Use the balm of mercy? It is not a question of personal offenses to be forgiven. It is a slavery from which to free oneself.

Mercy for the persecutors? For their accomplices? Rewarding traitors? Castigating the faithful? Forcing a legitimate bishop to give way to an excommunicated one? It this not more like rubbing salt on these still open wounds?

Let us return to the “objective situation”. The painful state was not created by us, but by the regime. The communists want to enslave the Church. There are those who refuse this enslavement, there are those who suffer, unfortunately there are those who embrace it.

Faced with this reality is it possible not to speak of “power, resistance, conflict, compromise, giving in, surrender, betrayal”?

Parolin wants us to talk about communion and collaboration. But are the conditions right? Where is this unity? How can we collaborate? Thus, we must analyse the two fundamental points that need clarification.

(3)
What is the unity you want to achieve?

a) His Eminence praises Chinese Catholics and states that “there are not two Catholic Churches in China”. If I’m not mistaken, I was the first to affirm this at a meeting of the Synod of Bishops, because, in both communities, the faithful in their hearts are loyal to the Pope (today with the increasing number of opportunists in the community run by the Government I no longer dare to apply this affirmation to the entire Church in China).

But Parolin cannot deny that, for the moment, there are two communities with two structures based on two different, opposing principles. One structure is founded on the principle of the Primacy of Peter on which Jesus established his Church, the other structure is imposed by an atheistic government intent on creating a schismatic Church subject to its power.

b) Eliminating this division and achieving unity must be the desire of every Catholic, but not with one wave of a magic wand, let alone by manipulating the Letter of Pope Benedict.

In the Letter by Pope Emeritus there is this paragraph (8.10): “Some (bishops), not wishing to be subjected to undue control exercised over the life of the Church, and eager to maintain total fidelity to the Successor of Peter and to Catholic doctrine, have felt themselves constrained to opt for clandestine consecration. The clandestine condition is not a normal feature of the Church's life, and history shows that Pastors and faithful have recourse to it only amid suffering, in the desire to maintain the integrity of their faith and to resist interference from State agencies in matters pertaining intimately to the Church's life. “Father Jeroom Heyndrickx citing out of context the phrase “the clandestine condition is not a normal feature of the Church's life,” has made it his mission to spread the word throughout China (where he enjoyed great freedom of movement): “there should be no more underground communities, everyone must come to the open and become part of the community subject to the Government”.

In the Commission for the Church in China we pointed out this grave error, but both the Secretariat of State and the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples ignored this warning, obviously supporting ​​Father Heyndrickx’ theory.

It was only two years later, when this mistake had already done immense damage, that we managed to include some notes in the “Compendium” booklet to try to distinguish the reconciliation of hearts from unity in structures.

c) Parolin says that one should not maintain “a perennial conflict between opposing principles and structures”. But obviously this does not depend on us alone, because one of the two structures is under Government power, which certainly exercises control over it and shows no sign of giving it up.
Pope Benedict says that the journey of unity “is not easy and cannot be accomplished overnight” (6.5, 6.6).

But our diplomats want a miracle and they want it now, and not only. They also accuse others of clinging “to the spirit of opposition to condemn his brother or use the past as an excuse to stir up new resentments and closures” and of not being ready “to forgive, this means, unfortunately, that there are other interests to defend: but this is not an evangelical perspective”.

These are really cruel reproaches to address to faithful members of the Church, who for many years have suffered every kind of deprivation and oppression for their fidelity to the true Church!

When the other party has no intention of respecting the essential nature of the Catholic Church and on our part one wants unity at all costs, there is only one possible choice, that of forcing everyone to enter the “bird’s cage”.

d) With the solution of the “enlarged cage” will this encourage people to walk together? To embark on a new path? With serenity? With confidence?

It is said that it will be a gradual process, but let us suppose that the authors already have the next steps to be taken after the legitimization of the illegitimate in mind.

What will become of those Bishops who are legitimate according to the law of the Church but who are not recognized by the Government? Will they be “accepted”? That is, admitted to the cage? Will it finally be “a” legitimate episcopal conference? (With the Government holding the key to the cage?)

Parolin and company recognize that this solution is not perfect, it is a lesser evil. You can endure and suffer an evil (damage), but you can never do wrong (sin), great or small.
Our suffering at the creation of a schismatic Church by others may be inevitable, but we cannot assist in its creation.

Moreover, a schismatic church created by the party is not a cause for fear, it will fade with the fall of the regime. Instead, a schismatic church with the Pope's blessing would be horrifying!

(4)
Having clarified the nature of the unity to be reached, it is easy to consider the following problem: How do we achieve this unity?

With reconciliation (ad intra) and dialogue (with the Government).

a) Reconciliation is not without difficulty but possible, because it depends only on our goodwill, dialogue with the Government is more difficult.

b) Pope Francis in Seoul had said: “The first condition of a dialogue is consistency with one's own identity.”

It is a matter of honesty, of justice. We need to know and let it be known where we want to arrive, that is, what our conscience dictates as a desirable outcome to dialogue. In our case, obviously it is: “a true religious freedom which not only does not harm but favours the true good of the nation”.

Will we be able to manage this dialogue? Is there a hope of success? Is there at least a minimum foundation to hope in the present situation when the Chinese Communist Party is more powerful and overbearing than ever? When, both its words and actions point to an even more rigorous control of every religion, but in a special way of the so-called “foreign” religions.

The Communists no longer feel the need to save appearances. Photographs show that it is the State that manages the Catholic Church in China, which is no longer Catholic but Chinese, schismatic. (The joint meeting of the Patriotic Association and the so-called “episcopal conference is [always] led by a government official”) The Popes refrain from using the word “schism” for compassion for those who find themselves not of their own will under severe pressure.

From what we can observe see, the Holy See is acquiescing to this unacceptable reality. (Is it really sure that this is for the good of the Church?)

In order for a dialogue to be true, it must start from a position of equality. There is no real dialogue between the jailer and the prisoners, between the victor and the vanquished. But our own seems to start from a position of weakness. Reliable source says that the Vatican Delegation could not discuss the case of Bishop James Su Zhi Min who has been in the hands of the government for more than twenty years, because our interlocutors refused. In my opinion, our delegation should have left the negotiating table and come home. Accepting their refusal is like kneeling down to them from the outset.

After all we are not the vanquished. Do our diplomats not know that the faithful of the clandestine community constituted, and perhaps still constitute, the majority? That they have churches and cathedrals in various places? That in the city, where obviously they cannot have churches, they say Masses in private homes so as not to be disturbed by the public security authorities who are also aware of everything. Unfortunately, as of February 2018 we can expect a much stricter control by the Government on the activities of these our brothers and sisters, also because the Government knows that by now it also has the consent of the Holy See.

c) While supporting the need for external dialogue with the government, the Vatican has stifled dialogue within the Church. With a supremely rude gesture it dismissed the Pontifical Commission for the Church in China set up by Pope Benedict without so much as a word. The only competent Chinese voice in the Vatican was Archbishop Savio, sending him as Nuncio to Greece. So much for “finding synthesis of truth”! So much for “discovering God's plan together”! They are convinced that they “have considered everything properly”.

(5)
The most repugnant thing I find in the whole interview is the dishonest exploitation of expressions of the Letter of Pope Benedict, making it appear as if he was a faithful supporter of the Pope Emeritus, whereas in reality he and the then Prefect of the Congregation for 'Evangelization of the Peoples have thwarted all of Pope Ratzinger’s efforts to bring the Church in China back on the right path.

At the beginning and end of the interview he made two citations respectively.

a) In Chapter 4 Paragraph 7 Pope Benedict says: “The solution to existing problems cannot be pursued via an ongoing conflict with the legitimate civil authorities; at the same time, though, compliance with those authorities is not acceptable when they interfere unduly in matters regarding the faith and discipline of the Church.. “

b) In Paragraph 6 he had said: (Citing “Deus caritas est”) “The Church cannot and must not replace the State. Yet at the same time she cannot and must not remain on the sidelines in the fight for justice..”

In both quotes, Parolin took advantage of the first half, leaving out the other half, losing the balance of Pope Benedict’s thought.

(6)
Given the recent controversies, I feel the desire to clarify my relationship with Pope Francis who, whenever I meet him, fills me with tenderness.

It is true that my revelations of a private interviews may have caused him embarrassment and for this I am sorry. But I am still convinced that there is a void between the way of thinking of His Holiness and the way of thinking of his collaborators, who readily take advantage of the Pope's optimism to pursue their goals. Until proven otherwise I am convinced that I have defended the good name of the Pope from the responsibility of the erroneous judgement of his collaborators and that he has communicated his encouragement to my brothers in China who are, as we say in China, “in the burning fire and in deep water”.

If, by chance, one day a bad agreement is signed with China, obviously with the approval of the Pope, I will withdraw in silence to “monastic life”. Certainly as a son, even if unworthy, of Don Bosco I will not make myself the head of a rebellion against the Roman Pontiff, Vicar of Christ on earth.

Let us pray for Pope Francis “that the Lord will preserve him, give him strength, make him happy, and save him from the hands of his enemies.”