From: Shizhong Chen <chen%molly@SDSC.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Patriotism
Reply-To: Shizhong Chen <chen%molly@SDSC.EDU>
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 06:13:57 GMT
Comments: To: china-nt@uga.cc.uga.edu

>From: CHINA%UTKVX.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu
>
>I believe I have made my different logic clear

I think so. I think we both have expressed our opinions clear, which is
what is important. So I am going to stop the exchange between the two
of us on this subject before the "quote and reply" gets too long. It is
almost impossible to change people's positions through debates, anyway.

>From: CHINA%UTKVX.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu
>
>What I am opposed to is not reporting to FBI, but reporting as a political
>threat, which I believe is true of most of the cases.
>
>My impression is that most reported cases are "political moderates".
>If it is wrong, correct me. If right, isn't it an interesting coincidence
>that all these "moderates" share "something else" making them being
>reported ?

Before I can answer you, I admit that I may not have completely understood
your position. It seems to me that you are saying as long as it is not used
as political threat, then it is OK to report to FBI. Is that right?

I don't have any inside information and I don't know how the FBI operates
(I wish I do), so I can't say anything about the "reported cases", nor the
political nature of those being "reported".

However, as far as CSS being investigated by FBI is concerned, I think your
impression on the so-called "political moderates" (excuse me, but I am
having a great difficulty in understanding and using the term "political
moderates") is rather inaccurate.

Before I can go on, I have to make some clarification on the term "political
moderates" so as to avoid offending you by prefixing it with "so-called" and
to avoid myself being misunderstood. I think the term "political moderate"
is a misnomer. First of all, moderate to one political view may be very
radical to another. For example, Raymond Luh, the prototype "political
moderate", as well as a number of well known "political moderates", has very
radical views on the 1989 pro-democracy movement and the June 4th massacre.
Second, there is a confusion between the terms of "political moderates" and
"majority CSS". I don't want to comment how this confusion was created, but
I want to point out that this confusion has been exploited by the "political
moderates", e.g. in the case of the famous "I believe...in fact...the
majority..." statement of the SUMC letter. Unfortunately, these "political
moderates" always forget to be coherent and consistant to hold together
their beautiful plot. This latest cry of "being reported" and checked by FBI
is just another pitiful example: they forgot that by far the minority of CSS
has been checked by FBI. To me, "political moderates" is just another group
with certain political views, just as liberals and conservatives in the US.
If the "political moderates" have the energy to attack the "D-fighters" who
clearly show their views and believes, these "political moderates" should at
least have the courage to indentify/acknowledge themselves as a political
active population with certain political views and believes, instead of
pretending to be politically "moderate" and innocent so as to hide among
the "majority" (or hide as Mr. Anonymous), claiming to be afraid of
"fighters", and occasionally yell out the seemingly hapless cry of "being
reported". By the way, the whole business of name-calling and labelling of
"D-fighter" and "political moderates", as well as "small reoprt makers",
"GaoGan", "patriots", etc., was started by the "political moderates". See,
like it or not, I am labelled as "D-fighter" and "former GaoGan" (and the
"political moderates" label only a few as "D-fighters" as if the majority
of CSS do not fight for democracy). On the other hand, appropriate or not,
the "political moderates" cover themself with the name "political moderates".
You can also see it becoming a pattern now for the "political moderates".
They make up names like "political moderates" and "patriots", define them
as noble quality, assume they have these "noble" quality, and thus their
 opponents, like "D-fighters" and "GaoGan", the opposite.

Now, back to your impression, I know more anit-CCP activists being checked
by FBI than any other groups of CSS, including the "political moderates".
For example, a large proportion of the presidents of local CSS organizations
during the years of 1989 and 1990 were monitored by FBI. The First
Congress of IFCSS was secured by FBI, and I will not be surprised if FBI
has a file on each and every of the representatives. As I have told you,
I was, and probably still is, checked by FBI. Who "reported" me? Is it "a
 political threat" to me (I don't care, anyway)? Let me ask you this: What
do I, or other "D-fighters" who have been checked by FBI, share that
"something else" with those "political moderates" who may be ckecked by
FBI? I know what you are trying to drive, but I think you are wrong. As long
as we are politically (or even economically, academically) active in this
foreign country, we are prone to be check by their security forces. That is what
 that "something else" is, and it is not going to be just an "interesting
coincedence".

It is understandable why you are strongly influenced by the idea of "being
reported" despite the fact that you have no evidence: it is because someone
 tries to influence the net. I will comment on this attmept of influence in
my next posting.

Shizhong Chen
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china