香港冇救,做任何嘢都係on9,港女係雞,港男係毒,遊行唔夠激進,激進入獄抵死,港獨冇可能,要返工不了,快啲移民,香港冇救

1001 回覆
4475 Like 55 Dislike
2018-07-04 00:49:38
There seems to be two main ideas here. I'll address them one by one.

First, the notion of 'evil', or, the wish to gain in expense of others. In older times we call this greed, though applied via your lens it assumes a zero-sum game where one's gain must necessarily result in the loss of another. Quite a lot of debate is still raging on about whether human society is a zero sum or positive sum game, and though I agree with the latter, I'll humour your assumption and go on with the argument.

If we were to assume human society is a zero-sum game, and that such 'evil' as you've mentioned would require the prefixing of Bezmenov's subversion techniques with powers political, then it would indeed seem that simply knowing the opponent's moves is not enough - after all, as you've said, a weakling would find little comfort in knowing the blow is going to land on his shoulder instead of his abdomen. The reality, however, is that the modus operandi of subversion lies not in direct blows as you've described. Rather than direct assertions of political power, it is the psychological response of the targeted society that is of the essence. Political clout helps in administering subversion, but it is absolutely not needed. What is needed is the response from the populace.

From Yuri's example we see the fiercest progenitors of subversion not being foreign agents, but local sympathisers of the foreign ideology. These would be, in Hong Kong's case, people like professors who hold an idealistic understanding of communism, politicians who truly believe Hong Kong can help China to democratise, and those people who think China means us well, arriving at such conclusions either out of ignorance or influenced by propaganda. It is because Hong Kong is a ideologically "democratic" society --- that is, the people of Hong Kong are allowed to hold a variety of opinions --- that naturally such thoughts and people may emerge. The role of the subverter, then, is not to invent such thoughts ex nihilo, but instead to shape and help such anti-Hong Kong thoughts and ideologies to fester and grow.

It is due to the above that the "weakling dreading the next blow in the boxing ring" metaphor doesn't work, for the damage comes not from the foreign enemy's direct blows, but from the target's own limbs. Imagine it being less of a boxing match, and more of the kind of martial arts as judo, or tai chi --- the more you react bluntly, the more damage is reflected back to you. Such is the case in subversion. It is a method of psychological warfare, and it depends on uneducated, emotional, blunt responses to attempts of subversion in order to succeed.

It is precisely because that the aim of subversion is that of an emotional, psychological response that we, as the ones being attacked, miraculously do not need political power to defend ourselves. If anything, fighting back with direct political force will only worsen the situation, and bring us closer to the Crisis point where civil war breaks out (which the subverter enemy would like to see, as it further weakens the nation). That is why I've been emphasising the psychological nature of subversion, and hence the psychological nature of defence as a result.

===========

The second idea you've presented seems to be the problem of eternal struggle between those who have and those who have not. Again, if we were to assume human society is a positive-sum game, then this problem will simply dissolve. It would also be a non-issue if we don't apply this overly crude understanding of society as polarising sides of either have's or have-not's. In fact it's a very Neo-Marxist understanding that pits everyone in either of two extremes in a re-purposed form of class struggle... I myself vehemently hates anything that is born of Marxism for its crudeness so I probably will just tell you to get lost if that's the thrust you're aiming for.
2018-07-04 00:50:22
1984年G. Edward Griffin與Yuri Bezmenov的對談 (翻譯節錄1b)


G:
好吧,我們談到了這個國家(編按:美國) 的知識分子,以及蘇聯的知識分子。那麼廣大市民的水平怎麼樣?一般的人,勞動人口,蘇聯的工人,他們是否支持這個制度,他們是否容忍它?他們的態度是什麼?

Y:
那麼,普通的蘇聯公民,如果他們存在的話,當然不喜歡這個體系,因為它是殺人的政權。他們可能不明白原因;他們可能沒有足夠的信息或教育背景來理解,但我很懷疑有多少人真真正正地支持那個蘇維埃制度。蘇聯沒有這樣的人。即使那些有充分理由享受社會主義的人,像我這樣的人,如新聞界的精英 - 他們也因為不同的原因而討厭這體系。不是因為他們缺乏物質上的富裕,而是因為他們沒有思想自由,總是處於恐懼狀態。 (雙重性格,分裂性格。)這對我的國家來說是一個悲劇。

G:
你認為人們有機會戰勝或推翻這個體系嗎?

Y:
這個體系或遲或早會從內部被摧毀。在任何社會主義、共產主義或法西斯體系中都存在一種自我毀滅機制,沿於該體系不仰賴國民的忠誠,從而缺乏推動改進的反饋。但是,除非蘇聯政府不再得到西方那些所謂“帝國主義者”,即跨國公司,企業,政府,以及知識分子的支持。(在美國有一些“學術界”人士以支持蘇聯體系而聞名。)

只要蘇聯政府繼續受到民主或自由國度裡頭的叛徒所提供的信貸、金錢、技術、糧食交易和政治承認等,我國的改變就沒有多大希望。這個體系之所以屹立不倒,竟然是因為“美帝國主義”的滋養。這是人類歷史上最大的悖論,資本主​​義世界支持並積極養育自己的殲滅者。

G:
我想你正嘗試告訴我們......這個國家一件事。

Y:
哦,是的。我想告訴你們必須停止,除非你們想要進入古拉格(編按:Gulag 勞改營管理總局,這詞彙泛指蘇聯的勞改營和所有形式的蘇聯政治迫害),享受社會主義平等的所有優勢,例如沒工資的工作、在身上捕捉跳蚤、睡在膠合板上。這是美國人最終目的地,當然,除非他們醒過來,並迫使他們的政府停止援助蘇聯的法西斯主義。

G:
你剛才告訴我們為什麼離開這個體系。我想聽聽你是如何做到,這必定是非常危險的事情。

Y:
不單危險,簡直太瘋狂了。首先,由於蘇聯政府的強大壓力,於印度叛逃幾乎是不可能的......

G:
打擾一下。你當時被派遣到印度,對嗎?

Y:
沒錯。我作為新聞官員在新德里的蘇聯大使館裡頭工作,但是一名蘇聯外交官想要叛逃幾乎是不可能的;如同自殺一般,因為“偉大的朋友”英迪拉·甘地(Indira Gandhi)在議會通過了一項法案:"任何國家的叛逃者在印度共和國領土上的任何大使館都不得享有政治庇護權。" 這是假仁假義的惡法;除了蘇聯人之外,根本沒有其他叛逃者需要政治庇護。

因為非常了解這一點,我計劃了最瘋狂的叛逃方式。我在印度學習反文化(counter-culture)。當時,印度有成千上萬的年輕美國男孩和女孩,他們赤著腳、留長髮、吸食大麻,有時學習印度哲學,有時只是假裝在學習。他們非常惱火印度警察,他們是印度人的笑柄。 (因為很明顯他們是不學無術的學生。)我仔細研究了他們聚集的地方、行走的路線、說什麼語言、吸什麼煙,然後有一天我加入一群嬉皮士以避免被印度警察發現。我穿著藍色牛仔褲、長袖襯衫及各式各樣的裝飾品,比如一串串珠子,還有長髮......我買了一頂假髮,因為幾個星期以來我不得不把自己從保守的蘇聯外交官變成一個非常前衛的美國嬉皮士。這是我唯一避免被發現的方法。

這是非常有趣的經歷,但這是必須的。因為根據我作為蘇聯大使館工作人員的知識,我知道有很多蘇聯叛逃者被印度警察出賣;有些西方大使館甚至利用非常骯髒的手段出賣蘇聯叛逃者。根據我們的信息,還有一些人 - 我不會稱他們為“雙重間諜” - 只是不道德的人,在美國大使館工作,信任這些人根本等同自殺。所以我必須非常謹慎;我不相信任何。這就是我選擇這種瘋狂方式的原因。

(翻譯未完待續)

繼續翻譯,繼續推
2018-07-04 00:54:32
2018-07-04 01:12:09
Lm
2018-07-04 01:36:43
2018-07-04 01:53:53
2018-07-04 03:10:54
推俾多啲人睇
2018-07-04 03:51:15
2018-07-04 07:36:20
譯咗share出嚟啦
2018-07-04 07:42:45
Lm
2018-07-04 08:04:02
推,一直有差唔多感覺,有人有系統咁制造無力感

但無樓主咁有系統咁用理論整理出黎
2018-07-04 08:05:38
供樓不了
2018-07-04 08:35:05
Lm
2018-07-04 08:41:01
淨係睇左頭一頁,
我又唔覺肥絲矯枉過正喎

平時又話要講口語唔好講蝗語,
但你打錯字又唔俾人指正你?

的確有時你會覺得無關痛癢,
例如左 同 咗
但有時佢講嘅,我睇完又會覺得長知識了
例如雞脾 同 雞髀

矯枉過正 同 雙重標準只係一線之差
你個標準到底係去到邊呢?

的確你可以話,我依家同你討論肥絲,
應驗左你所講既只討論小錯, 小細節,
但你又話唔好俾中共洗腦,
要多啲討論香港既未來, 保衛香港文化

但眼前觸手可及嘅錯處唔去保衛,
反而要先顧及常人難以觸摸既未來?

我認為從小做起冇錯喎。

其他部分我大致會留意吓
如果只係要自思想免疫,
我諗我都可以出一分力既
2018-07-04 08:41:45
好多謝樓主同埋一眾熱心巴打既output,當然仲有數之不盡既五毛推post
大家真係要由自己做起,上位又好影響身邊既親朋好友也好,
唔好輕言放棄
2018-07-04 08:54:01



2018-07-04 09:12:30
當推下post回
其實香港人有個習慣係屌咗人錯先多過自己做好件事,推廣正字風氣+見到有人錯字幫人改(唔好比分 )已經好夠,簡繁,抗蝗語同理

唔係話個本意,但我建議都係做好自己,認好d字先,再去推廣做下特警

我最唔gur係班打手係會見你改正都屌你,搞到d細路模仿,覺得錯字都無所謂仲要屌返人轉頭囉

自從少咗人改錯字,兩登真係多咗錯字
2018-07-04 09:16:45
消極抗爭唔關港獨事
成單野最簡單講係泛民唔識向前行
2018-07-04 09:27:26
樓主 av 仁
2018-07-04 09:31:31
所以第三階段算係一種陣痛,係溫水煮蛙之後既預期結果
2018-07-04 09:42:46
探討價值觀前是否可以提一樣野就係人之所以為人因為有 「人性」,現代社會提倡個人化,人類獨善其身,將自己同社會抽離係咪都有份做成今日既惡果?
2018-07-04 09:49:02
是預期結果,在頭兩階段沒有被同化或驅趕的,在這階段會被激發起作最後反抗,然後入獄,清算。
2018-07-04 09:49:36
問題唔係改錯字
問題係將個討論飛咗去一隻字到

其實好簡單,係個presentation嘅問題
某位會員好鍾意將改字變成佢嘅個人標記,整埋signature又盛,吹噓埋自己Google search auto-suggestions
咁個原意就已經變咗,因爲久而久之,途徑嘅人就會見到個「會員」,而唔係「正字」

個結果就係討論已經離咗題,去咗同某一個會員嘅人身罵戰。
2018-07-04 09:57:36
我明白你嘅憂慮,
但你會唔會放大咗佢嘅問題?

即係好似有人佔中,
然後有人俾警方拉去坐監,
咁係咪佔中嘅問題?

肥絲只係指正你嘅錯字,
你大可以接受然後改正,
將討論離題嘅,
你認為會唔會係反肥絲嘅人?
2018-07-04 09:59:01
咦,巴打真係睇完個lecture再譯喎,譯得好過我嗰個臨急亂譯好多

有冇soft copy?我諗住一路落嚟嘅資料收集埋一齊。
吹水台自選台熱 門最 新手機台時事台政事台World體育台娛樂台動漫台Apps台遊戲台影視台講故台健康台感情台潮流台上班台財經台房屋台飲食台旅遊台學術台校園台汽車台音樂台創意台硬件台攝影台玩具台寵物台軟件台活動台電訊台直播台站務台成人台黑 洞