陶傑 | Red Pill Magazine

子女在英國讀書，避免中毒

西方左派近年入侵西方人的正常生活，用但係愛平等包裝極左的馬克斯主義，在教育界、荷里活、傳媒經營多年，佔據主流之後，開始文化獨裁，打擊異見人士，令英美沉默的大多數不敢開口，怕一開口就被標籤為極右人渣法西斯。每一個人的性別、種族與生俱來。男人就是男人，女人就是女人，在香港和華人社會，千百年來並無爭議。天下本無事、庸人自擾之，全民起動拼命要在太監之中找一個生物上的女人，又或者在尼姑庵裏找一個男人，純屬浪費時間。中國人不做這樣的蠢事。但近年英語世界陷入此類集體愚蠢。「身份政治」近年入侵音樂界。兩百年的古典音樂作家：巴哈、海頓、莫札特、貝多芬，以及柏林交響樂團，清一色是金髮白種的男人天下。此一歷史與文化的事實，現在備受英語世界的西方現代音樂本來被非洲的敲擊樂滲透，一味的嘈吵，加上空氣裏一股大麻味道。非洲黑人騎劫西方樂壇，已經討厭，最新起爭論，包括翻出十九世紀一個混血的黑人小提琴家布里治陶與另外，莫扎特有一個姐姐，不為人知，據說才華被時代埋沒，甚至有猜測她的一些作品被歸為弟弟名下。此類「翻案」，顯示出西方左派的意識形態日趨極端，無處不在煽動兩性和不同種族、階級身份之間的分化敵意。現代流行音樂的主流下，古典音樂已經邊緣化，無法擺脫被批判的噩運。十八世紀的女性，其政治和經濟權利都大受局限，但這不是莫札特父親的錯，更不是莫札特的錯。在莫札特的年代，許多貴族婦女都是優秀的鋼琴家，她們只活躍於上流社交圈，並不公開然而，這些歷史細節，左派的政治故意忽略，將整個西方古典音樂是抹黑為男性霸權、白人種族優越主義者「玩晒」。美國民主黨由奧巴馬到今日的賀錦麗，就是代表這股文化大革命的惡西方的女權運動，是一場浩大的歷史潮流結果：即工業化令人類逐漸得以擺脫舊有的土地、農業和政治專制。女性主義率先在西方興起，是因爲脫胎自基督教信念，目標是人權平等。即使十八世紀的歐洲宮廷，貴族婦女的地位和權益，比低下階層的手工作坊或耕田的工農男人高級，不是性別歧視問題，而是社會經濟結構的必然結果。在莫札特最著名的一齣歌劇之中，伯爵夫人與侍女交換身份而易服，作曲家為這兩位女主角所寫的唱段，刻意模糊其階級的分野，因爲當時最重要的政治議題，不是兩性之爭，而是貴族與自從法國大革命之後，歐洲舊有的王權崩塌，貴族遭清洗，釋放了巨大的權力空間，十九世紀的中產女性，比大革命之前得享更多自由，莫札特的姐姐一旦嫁人，沒有再施展音樂才華的機十九世紀末，女權運動順勢形成，因為此時女性受教育程度大大提升，傳教事業興旺，許多女性傳教士前往異域工作，興學行醫，眼界大開，又適逢第一次世界大戰爆發，歐洲的勞工市場因爲工業化帶來商業繁榮的現代社會，傳統男性的體力，已經不再佔有絕對優勢，而商業社會及民主政治特別著重的溝通、傳播、調停等技能，女性都勝任有餘。時至今日，西方左派政治表面以推進「社會進步」爲名，其實社會分裂為代價，然而最大的時代挑戰，是人工智能對人文的挑戰，包括女權運動在内的身份政治，卻以男性為政治敵對目標當今世界，只有先進的富裕社會才有女權議題，卻生育率普遍低下；與之相反，生育率居高不下的地方。如非洲和中東等，根本沒有女權議題的空間。左派的女性主義由爭取人權，演變爲香港家長將子女送去英國讀中學，要警惕英國中學課程之中已經塞入了大量甚有政治偏見的這類毒素，要留意子女在英國讀書的過程，為了要融入「主流」，被班級其他同學誤導，為了要在這方面，家長要謹慎應對，從小正確教育子女：你長大了，是男人；或者你長大了，是簡單的女人。或者，我們都是華人；記住：我們一家都是正常人。

Can Trump succeed?

Translated by AITrump's strong rise to power has drawn global attention. Everyone says this charismatic strongman president's behavior is unpredictable; however, it is precisely due to the eight years of Obama and how various crises in today's world have worsened that makes it unpredictable.In order for the world to be filled with chaos and disorder, the United States needs a leader capable of responding to the unpredictable. This illustrates how many people misunderstand Trump.Politics is determined by human behavior, which is influenced by emotions and different cultural mindsets, often leading to irrationality. Therefore, politics is not a science. Yet, as humans are part of society, historical changes and fluctuations have their own set of rules.Because human nature has many dark sides, power corrupts, and monarchs can be arrogant, like spoiled children, human behavior can often be predicted. The laws of social change, upon reflection, also show a pattern.Trump's "unpredictability" is not the real issue; the true question is why the West and humanity find themselves in an unprecedented predicament today.Trump is a leader who has faced the worst public scrutiny since the founding of the United States. During his last four years, American society, including mainstream media, never treated one of its own presidents fairly or objectively. The bias against Trump stems from his business dealings before eOf course, Trump’s economic policies also have significant hidden concerns. For example, he cannot compel the next generation of Americans to return to the industrious spirit of their grandparents in the 1950s and go back to factories. Whether the U.S. can revive its industry depends on American busHowever, can this move counterbalance the inflation effects caused by tariffs on Chinese imports? How do the two relate? Governing a country of 300 million people, Americans’ minimum wage and working hours are increasing, and Trump cannot cut back in that area. Thus, shadows loom over Trump’s economNonetheless, America’s advantage is that it is America. What other countries cannot achieve with Britain, America has the opportunity to do. The U.S. is the world's largest consumer nation and also has abundant energy resources. American culture and military dominance claim global supremacy, and theTrump and his team must recognize that their Eastern adversary has a 3,000-year culture and the strategic cunning of Sun Tzu, being ten times more astute and difficult than Russia’s Putin.Facing a mountain of domestic issues, four years is certainly not enough for Trump. A friend of mine in an international school in Hong Kong has a daughter who, not yet in her sixth year of secondary school, has already returned to tell her parents that she identifies as "Tran." The parents, perplexIf this is the situation in Hong Kong, it highlights the immense influence of the American left and demonstrates America’s strong impact. America’s greatest strength lies in its influence. Trump’s election terrified the German Chancellor, prompting her to call for early elections, and it’s believed Trump possesses a Moses-like power to lead his people across the Red Sea; more and more people believe that God will intervene at critical moments, just like a bullet that passes through without harm.

美國民主制度不好，難道回歸中國方式？

美國總統大選，特朗普回歸，支持賀錦麗的選民呼天搶地，連許多平時理性的美國知識分子也哀嚎：美國的民主出了大問題。美國的議會民主制度沒有問題，是輸打贏要、大量長期被左翼意識形態洗了腦的人的心智才有問題。民主普選並非最好的制度。前首相邱吉爾說過：但這是經過其他多種制度試驗之後，民主普選被證實是害處最小的制度。邱吉爾不但是軍事家，也是政治家，也是歷史學家。民主普選當然有問題，古希臘的柏拉圖就曾經提出：一旦選民缺乏教育，知識淺薄，不懂得思考，政客鼓其如簧之舌，開空頭支票，哄騙民意，可以憑欺詐上台，為國家造成損失。柏拉圖認為：一個理想的社會，不能有民主普選，只能由智者精英，亦即所謂Philosopher King 來統治。而Philosopher King (簡稱PK)又如何選拔？柏拉圖沒有說。這個PK做了理想國的國王之後，其性格會不會變化？權力會令人腐化，再品格純正君子的哲人PK，在擁有權力之後也會傲慢自大，也會認為自己是天才，也會淪為真正的PK。柏拉圖也沒有答案，只是口口聲聲說：選民的質素沒有保證，選民容易聽信謊言。這一點沒有錯。因此人類古往今來，從來未能實驗出一個完全理想的制度，在西方，在教育普及、教育質素有保證的大前提下，只能實現一個最合理的制度。發現選錯了領袖，四五年一度，即刻可以換人。而且三權分立，互相制衡，確保領袖不會濫用權力。因此，華盛頓確立的美國議會民主制度沒有問題，出了問題的是美國教育的內容。近二十年來，暗藏的馬克思或共產主義者「精英」在美國中小學的課程加入了大量左派意識形態的毒素，鼓吹同性戀主流、鼓勵變性手術，經濟民生次要，美國的選民反而有常識，不必有哈佛學位，用選票將許多博士碩士的左翼政客趕了下台。美國的議會民主有問題，那麼難道回歸到中國的君主制就萬事大吉？許多年一票選舉權也沒有的中國人，難免歡呼雀躍，幸災樂禍，基於其長期的民族自卑感與自大狂，有這樣的情緒反應也很易理解。然而中國的君主制，必然也是極權嗎？「禮運大同篇」對於中國領袖的產生方式，只有四個字，叫做「選言語能」。選賢與能，與柏拉圖的精英管治相同。只是沒有詳細說明：是如何「選」法？當選的能人，任期有多長？權力會不會腐化？在這方面與柏拉圖一樣，也欠缺了細節。中國的君主制度走向專政，當然由秦始皇開始。但在秦始皇之後，也不是沒有回歸過一點常理。例如唐宋兩代的皇帝，由唐太宗道宋太祖，由宋太祖到宋徽宗，沒有一個是秦始皇一類的暴君，大多數有聽取意見的胸襟。譬如唐代，皇帝並非一人決斷，而是由一個類似中國國務院一樣的「中書省」來商議。中樞省有大學士多名，為首的那個叫做「中書令」，相當於宰相。重大政策由中書省合庭商議產生，中書令蓋章，再交付另一個叫做「門下」的機構唐宋兩代近七百年，沿用這套管治方式，沒有獨裁，也沒有帝王的暴政，與柏拉圖的理想國非常相似，而且比理想國好： PK不是一個人，而是一大群人， PK階級之內有商有量，也有爭論， PK之上，才是皇帝。而對於皇帝的要求，也有「內聖外王」的儒家道德鞭策。其中出現過宰相王安石變法事件，但王安石沒有軍事政變奪權。因此，中國人從前施行過精英統治，精英由科舉產生，來自民間。這套制度其實不錯，今日都成為歷史。英國考公務員，叫做Mandarin，也是來自唐宋科舉的靈感。對美國的民主制度不滿意，可以參考中國制度，不過不是秦始皇和毛澤東這一頭一尾的暴政，而是取其中段。美國的漢學家對中國文化一知半解，否則面對今日的亂局，是他們應該在美國大聲疾呼的時候。但他們沒有，將輿論交給了TikTok的民粹。

Reflecting on Hong Kong from the Perspective of American Democratic Elections

Translated by AI:The U.S. presidential election features a unique "Electoral College" system, which has attracted significant global attention and scrutiny.The "Electoral College" is well-known; it does not simply involve a straightforward majority vote from the American electorate. In this regard, Taiwan's presidential elections are arguably more democratic than those in the United States.Furthermore, the presidential candidates of the two major U.S. parties are not chosen through "citizen nominations." Instead, they are determined by internal assessments of public opinion conducted by various interest groups within the parties.The U.S. Congress is divided into two chambers: the House of Representatives and the Senate. Although elections are held every two years, the two chambers function like the upper and lower levels of a bus. After a bill passes the House, it must be submitted to the Senate, and both chambers must apprIn contrast, the British Parliament consists of an upper house and a lower house, with some members of the upper house being hereditary peers and a significant portion appointed by the Prime Minister. For example, after leaving his political career, Chris Patten was appointed as a member of the HousFrom these examples, it’s clear that the electoral systems in the UK and the U.S. do not constitute "universal suffrage." Both countries have had their electoral methods in place for at least 200 years, but the question remains: are they functioning well? Can they guarantee the election of perfect lIn the U.S., ballots can be mailed in advance or cast electronically. However, the media does not report on where these mailed ballots are stored or if they have been moved during that time, and there is no paparazzi following them around twenty-four hours a day. In contrast, in most democratic counThe model of "universal suffrage" proposed in Hong Kong aligns with the former pro-democracy camp's consistent stance: that the chief executive candidates must be nominated by citizens, and all Legislative Council seats should be directly elected. Some have questioned: if a candidate like "Long HairConsider this: you are all human, born equal. Do you think this situation is equal?If it is not equal, then should this structural inequality in Hong Kong be changed? If you elect me as chief executive, I promise that large corporations with profits exceeding 500 million will have to pay 70% in corporate taxes. The taxes collected will be redistributed to impoverished citizens livIf "universal suffrage" were implemented, I believe there would be more than a 50% chance that Mr. Leung Kwok-hung would become the chief executive of today's Hong Kong.This hypothesis, of course, does not disrespect Mr. Leung. He has every right to his political views and expressions, and Benny Tai can propose the possibility of universal suffrage within academic circles. However, Mr. Leung is a follower of Trotsky, a figure from the extreme left of the former SovBefore 2019, Hong Kong enjoyed relative freedom of speech but never engaged in mature discussions about whether the electoral systems of the UK and the U.S. qualify as universal suffrage. Because once a rational and critical analysis is presented, it would be labeled by the pro-democracy side as havAs a result, those holding such views would refrain from speaking out, much like today in the U.S., where many reportedly believe that Trump is not as bad as Kamala Harris but dare not express this publicly for fear of social repercussions and potentially losing their jobs.This reflects a structural problem in society. In any country, regardless of how democratic and free it is, democracy and freedom need to be practiced by free individuals. Just as in a communist utopia where wealth and food are to be distributed equally, the distribution process is not handled by diOn what basis can some individuals control the distribution of wealth and food? Where do these people derive their power? Is there any selfishness in the distribution process? Marx did not address any of this in his discourse.This highlights that the quality of "humans" does not guarantee perfection, whether in the leaders elected or the voters casting ballots.Today's electoral democracy in the U.S. is not merely a systemic issue but rather a problem with the quality and judgment of the broader populace. Human issues are shaped by education across generations: moral values, ways of thinking, and judgments of good and evil are all molded from kindergarten Three days before the U.S. election, a law passed by the German parliament came into effect: German citizens can now freely change their official records regarding name and gender, once a year, without needing medical proof or a judicial ruling. Authorities have already received at least 1,200 appliAccording to this law, a person's gender in Germany is no longer determined by physiological characteristics but by individual will. Adult Germans can choose from four genders: male, female, non-binary, and gender-neutral. Additionally, individuals can freely change their names to better reflect theLike the U.S., Germany is a parliamentary democracy. Of course, if a democratic decision is wrong, it can be corrected in the next election cycle as long as the president or prime minister can be replaced. However, given today’s trends, this is not guaranteed: when The Washington Post announced this

陶傑

2 months ago