In the 60-70s how sex predators in HK using goldfish as bates to lure young girls to have sex. In the 21st century, US adopted HK goldfish sex predators tactics luring countries. We are afraid these countries will ends up like the young girls in HK. Look at what has happened to Afghanistan! 在 60-70 年代，香港的性掠奪者如何引誘年輕女孩發生性行為. 21世紀, 美國採用香港金魚性掠奪者策略引誘各國. 我們擔心這些國家最終會像香港的年輕女孩一樣. 看看阿富汗發生了什麼 – 就像那些可憐的香港無知少女一樣!

Let me share with you the inquiry by a rich Chinese friend considering to send her daughter to attend Stanford University or UC Berkeley and the suggestions I have just provided to him.

我和你分享我剛剛回答一位中國有錢朋友的女兒想來美國讀書的問題.

Stanford 大學用關係入校機會極微, 要靠實力. 已經有人要用關係給錢被判刑. 另一可能是捐款, 但Stanford 錢太多, 除非是捐千萬美元否則也不用想. 我有不小中國朋友孩子進入名校但讀一些沒用的本科. 當然如果是富二代, 那個學位祇是用來出出風頭, 這些人多的是來到美國天天吸毒, 交交男女朋友, party 等等, 十年也不畢業, 也不回國的職業學生.

UC Berkeley 是州立大學, 走後門的機會不大.

今天美國那麼仇中, 來美國風險高. 那天時運不濟, 分分鐘沒命.

美國現在快速走下坡, 萬一你女兒定居美國, 你不擔心你的女兒也要擔心你的孫子的將來, 沒有將來!

今天美國已經不是二十年前的美國, 外強中乾. 當美元不再是世界貨幣是, 就是美國走向死亡像羅馬帝國的開始. 最快15年, 最慢30年內發生. 到時你女兒是48歲吧. 到時她回國也無門.

你要三思，再三思.

Stanford University has very little chance of entering the school by relationship, and it depends on student academic standing and other non-academic requirements. Some people have already been sentenced to jail for using illegal relationship and bribery. Another possibility is donation, but Stanford has too much money, unless it is a donation of ten millions or more, otherwise you don’t have to think about it. I have a lot of China Friends’ children enter prestigious schools but do some useless undergraduate studies. Of course, if they are a rich second-generation, that degree is just for showing off. Many of these people come to the United States to take illegal drugs every day, make boyfriend and girlfriend and parties, etc. They don’t even graduate for ten years. These professional students never graduate and don’t want to return to China.

UC Berkeley is a state university, so there is little chance of going through the back door.

Today the United States is so anti-Asians especially Chinese, the risk of living dangerously in the United States is high.

U.S. is rapidly going downhill. In case your daughter settles in the U.S., if you don’t worry about your daughter, but you need to worry about the future of your grandkids, there is little future for them!

Today the United States has not been the United States twenty years ago. It only looks strong from the outside. When the US dollar is no longer the world currency, it is the beginning of the steep decline of the United States like the Roman Empire. It will happen in 15 years at the earliest and 30 years at the latest. By then, your daughter will be 48 years old. She will be stuck. There will be no way for her to return to China.

You have to think twice, think twice.

Professor Ling-chi Wang of UC Berkeley: Hi, Johnson: Since some of the newly rich and inexperienced celebrities got caught trying to buy or game their ways into the better universities and colleges a few years ago, universities, both private and public, are more cautious and discreet in the ways they admit students from the rich, famous, and powerful families. Since Harvard, the very first college in North America, was founded in 1636. the game has always been and will continue to be in favor of the rich, famous, and powerful because that was how the system was built: to clone and reproduce themselves. To be sure, they will continue to admit outstanding students who will make important scientific discoveries and outstanding intellectual breakthroughs and help gain reputation for these institutions. But, these will be exceptions. The vast majority of students will continue to be the privileged ones from the rich, famous, and the powerful.

Aboishing the SAT tests will neither help achieve greater equality nor select “better qualified” students. For more than one hundred years, contrary to popular beliefs SAT tests were not used to help select better qualified applicants. Instead, they were used to turn away students from the poor and the working class and students deemed incapable of making contributions to the institutions. Universities know SAT tests are race and class bias and above all, they don’t help pick the best students. But, they are the most expedient and efficient schemes to justify rejection of thousands of students each year.

The admission scandals in the last few years exposed the corruption and unfairness in the meritocracy used by universities and colleges. It was embarrassing, but they did nothing to move the universities away from the use of biased criteria and procedures of admission to reproduce themselves. For example, legacy and athletic, the two larges cohorts admitted in the freshman class each year, remain unchanged and may even be expanding because both are important for generating revenues for the universities.

In short, don’t expect Stanford and Berkeley to rollback their commitment to these two revenue-generating schemes and the class and race bias built into these two programs.

Frank Mah in San Francisco: Hi, Johnson, Ling-chi, If the child of your friend has an interest to attend Stanford or Cal Berkeley, he or she should apply. Both universities are outstanding and can offer a quality education that few other universities can match. I had the opportunity to work for both universities and learned to compare the educational philosophy of both schools. Stanford is a top-down university with a strong administration. UC Berkeley is a relatively flat university with strong academic departments; their students are ultra competitive and keen to compete with their peers. Stanford views that getting a top quality education is only half of its objective. The other half is its residential education program, Stanford students tend to be more collegial, seeking to form friendships globally for life. Important to note that these are generalizations, as there are exceptions.

Currently AAPI students make up 34% of Berkeley’s student body. Around 27% for Stanford. The former is a more hostile campus due to the competitiveness of its students. Both universities seek to diversity its student body. Both seek to integrate its campuses, matching students base on what they can contribute to campus life. Less then 15% of Stanford’s student body can be deemed geniuses, but over 95% must meet high standards for admission. Donors and legacies, i.e., children of alumni, staff employees, and billionaires can make up 15-20% of its student body. Other factors include geographic location, i.e., urban vs rural; domestic vs foreign. These factors offers to make a rich environment for its students. More significantly, it’s the students aptitude to complete four years of high quality study in their respective field, which is what academics is all about. If a student wants to party, they should consider another school. It is a factor for Stanford to seek students from potential donors and rich families abroad. It’s also is a factor for them to consider legacies of important leaders, personalities, etc. to enrich the student campus experience. Imagine a poor farm boy/girl from Iowa hobnobbing with Madonna’s child, or a billionaires child from Burma. Of course, most people, for one reason or another, will consider this unfair. In the past, test scores and GPA were found to be reliable due to race, family income, and education; this has now been eliminated or reduced in weighing a student’s application compared to other significant factors, such as skills, accomplishments, leadership, diversity etc.

Chances are that your friend’s child will not make it into either school due to the vast number off applications it receives. I often will counsel family and friends on the admissions process and also help steer them to also seek alternatives that may better fit the academic objectives/aspirations of the student. Sometimes a local community college is a better fit for a student with low grades or lacking vision of his or her aspirations. Sometimes a school like Cal Tech or may offer a better choice for those who are research oriented in a particular field. It’s a little known fact that only half of college students complete their course of study w/o graduating. When I was matriculating at San Jose State University, I also had the opportunity to be an EOP (Educational Opportunity Program) Recruiter seeking educationally & economically disadvantaged students for college study.

Johnson Choi: Why did Ronnie Chan gave almost US$400 millions to US Universities when made his money in Hong Kong and China? 蔡永強: 陳啟宗在香港和中國賺大錢，為什麼要捐近4億美元給美國大學？

Professor Ling-chi Wang of UC Berkeley: Hi, Johnson, Most wealthy Chinese make spectacular donations universities to achieve national or international visibility and/or personal glory and immortality. Unfortunately, very few donate for altruistic reasons. Even fewer make strategic donations toward specific intellectual or political purposes. 加州大學伯克利分校的王靈智教授：嗨, 蔡永強, 大多數富有的中國人都會向大學捐款，以實現國內或國際知名度和/或個人榮耀和不朽。 不幸的是，很少有人出於利他的原因捐款。 為特定的知識或政治目的做出戰略性捐贈的就更少了。

If you take a look at how wealthy Jewish donors in the past made their donations at a time when there was willful, pervasive anti-Semitism, you will find many of them made very strategic donations specifically for the advancement of better knowledge and understanding of Jewish people, their history and culture, meaning, use of their money to combat prejudice and ignorance. For example, the Ivy League universities were notoriously anti-Semitic. They were the ones that invented “Jewish Quota” and refused to admit qualified and superior students of Jewish origin. What did the wealthyJewish donors do? They donated money to these same universities for the Jewish studies to promote the production, proliferation, and appreciation of Jewish knowledge and understanding. They also established endowments for the appointments for great Jewish scholars in all fields. This way, knowledge and appreciation of Jewish intellectual achievements spread across the nation and throughout the world. Guess what? Slowly but surely, Jewish history, language, culture, religion, philosophy, etc., permeated the Western civilization, the curricula of great universities, and the teaching and research. Jewish quota was finally abolished in the mid-1950s. That was how important aspects of my old field of study, Semitic language and literature, flourished and got well entrenched among all the research universities throughout the world and how media became more sensitive about anti-Semitism.

In spite of China’s fame and claim as one of the greatest languages, cultures, religions, and philosophies of the world, China remains, to this date, the least understood and most feared. For centuries, Chinese studies was called Sinology, relegated to something rather exotic and mysterious, reserved only for very few willing to spend their lives to such an intellectual exotica. For those who don’t even know the world Sinology, the field was known as Oriental studies, also an exclusive exotica. Orientals were regarded popularly as a subhuman species. (Lt. Calley’s defense characterized the My Lai deaths from the massacre as “mere Oriental).” Sinology was devoted exclusively to the study of ancient, not current Chinese language, literature, religion, and philosophy. There was little or no interest in the study of real and living Chinese history, society, spoken languages, folk arts and cultures, politics, etc. Such study did not enter university research and curricula, if you can believe it, until the Cold War, better known as the International and Area Studies (IAS), driven mostly by the needs of the Cold Warriors, Western governments, intelligence, and corporations, whose primary interests were the East-West ideological and political conflicts and better military and economic domination of areas vital to the interests of the West or the Empire.

That is why to this date, China remains relatively unknown or worse, misunderstood, suspected, and feared. This is not an accident in history: it is done on purpose to enhance the interests of the Empire.

Johnson, in answer to your question, What is wrong with billionaires, like Ronnie C. Chan, who has been giving hundreds of millions to wealthy Euro-American universities, by donating money to the same universities with the same biased objectives of keeping the West ignorant and misled, these Chinese donors are perpetuating the same prejudice against and ignorance about China and its people. This is willful ignorance and stupidity. It is complicity of the worst kind. They need to donate money to advance true knowledge and understanding of China, its people and culture.

Universities in China and India are the leading feeder universities for the research universities in the U.S. Between the two, China is the most important feeder of graduate students in science and technology. I think many top American universities consider Beijing University and Qinghua Universities to be the top feeder universities for the best universities in the U.S. They are like community colleges transferring annually the better students to four-year colleges and universities.

As you said, many top students do not return to China upon completion of their graduate training. Chinese government considers this to be a serious brain-drain, depriving China the benefits of its best and brightest. I personally do not think so for several reasons. First and foremost, China has an abundance of bright and well-trained brains. That supply of bright and well-training students has been increasing quite sharply since Deng Xiaoping’s reform and opening up because of China’s massive investment in colleges and universities. That increase, in fact, reminds me of the massive post-war investment and expansion of higher education in the U.S., not just at the top, but also at the bottom, the feeder, community college level. Within California, for example, the UC system, the premiere research institution, had five campuses in 1960. By the end of the decade, UC had nine campuses, adding, San Diego, Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz, and Riverside. It was not until 2005 that a 10th campus – UC Merced – was added. In fact, the U.S. has been divesting in higher education since the 1980s. Between 1970 and 2005, UC system added only one campus, Merced, even though the California population doubled its population. The fight over affirmative action policy is a reflection of the divestment and the ensuing competition for admission. In the same period, China vastly expanded its high education and the trends has not led up. China, as you all know, has about 370,000 students studying in U.S. coll eges and universities.

Secondly, China sees education abroad as an investment in human resources. Since Europe and North America have the most developed systems of higher education and their systems excel in science and technology, China, for the time being, still sees benefits for its students in getting the kind of education China lacks at the present. In spite of brain-drain, I do not see the government interfering with the tread toward education abroad. China may talk about brain-drain, it also see benefits in the long run, at least for the time being. I do see China expanding is research and development. This, in the long run, will attract more and more its students to return to China upon completion of their education in Europe and N. America. In fact, as the conflict between China and U.S. intensify and anti-Chinese sentiment rises, more an more Chinese students will see better opportunity and support in China rather than the U.S. I think this trend is inevitable and it will be a loss to the U.S. in the competition for the best and the brightest and its competition with China.

American’s freedom democracy human rights and rules of laws depends on the color of your skin! 美國的自由民主人權和法律規則取決於你的膚色！

George McLaurin, the first black man admitted to the University of Oklahoma in 1948, was forced to sit in a corner away from his whites. But his name remains on the honor list as one of the top three students in the university. Here’s his words: ′′Some colleagues looked at me like I was an animal, no one gave me a word, the masters seemed to be there for me, and didn’t take my questions. But I devoted myself so much that afterwards they started looking for me to explain and clarify their questions”.

′′ The only weapon capable of transforming the world… is EDUCATION ′′

Via Hakim Habbi & Mousumi Roy

It is such a good news that 90,000 foreign agents, foreign governments collaborators and Western Moon Worshippers left HK since passing the Homeland Security Law. 自從《國土安全法》通過後，90,000 名外國特工、外國政府合作者和西方月亮崇拜者離開了香港，這是一個好消息.

Huang Liuquan, deputy director of the State Council’s Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office, addresses Legislative Council in unprecedented meeting and says anti-government protests in 2019 proved costly for city’s economic development. 國務院港澳事務辦公室副主任在史無前例的會議上向立法會發表講話，並表示 2019 年的反政府抗議活動對城市的經濟發展造成了代價高昂的代價.

Video: Former Huawei Executive Speaks Out on China | 前华为高管眼中真实的中国.

https://vimeo.com/590850399
https://youtu.be/bWXYcJjDwWc
https://www.facebook.com/100036400039778/posts/552671495956180/?d=n

0:00- Intro
1:23 – Welcome Chris
1:39 – How did Chris’s China Journey begin?
2:36 – How did Cyrus’ China Journey begin?
3:27 – Recent Events in Zhengzhou
5:20 – Biggest Challenge as a Student in China?
7:05 – Importance of Speaking Chinese
9:41 – Biggest Challenges of Foreign Companies in China
13:25 – Why Western Companies Fail in China
13:44 – Huawei in China and Canada
15:40 – Why Internet is Important for Poverty Alleviation
17:57 – Is a Stronger Relationship the best for Canada moving forward?
19:42 – Cultural Differences Between US and China
22:12 – Is China the Greatest Threat in the World?
23:42 – Competition Makes Us Stronger!
26:05 – What is One Thing You Want the World to Know About China?

Video: Illegal operations with support from NED/CIA under the fake freedom democracy human rights and rules of laws for 19 years【有聲專欄】屈穎妍 :莫名其妙的19年
https://vimeo.com/590780825
https://youtu.be/x_eyO74bDO0
https://www.facebook.com/100036400039778/posts/552579799298683/?d=n
同屬非法社團，自稱黑社會就要拉，但自稱民陣卻可以上電視做英雄，滔滔發言。法律面前，真的人人平等嗎？

反政府反了19年的「民間人權陣線」解散了，撐黑暴的「612人道支援基金」停止運作了，看到這些新聞，大家第一個反應是什麼？

樹倒猢猻散？夾帶私逃？叫人衝、自己鬆？……這些感覺都有，不過，大家肯定還有另一個共同反應：有冇搞錯！

這句「有冇搞錯」，不是給反對派，而是給政府的。

不解散不知道，在香港打正旗號玩了19年的「民陣」，一年幾次召眾晒馬、籌款吸金，至少搞過64場遊行集會，每次有媒體頭版宣傳、有警方開路維持秩序，政府高官個個買他們怕。卻原來，它跟黑社會一樣，是個沒註冊的非法社團。

同樣，不停運不知道，公開眾籌的「612基金」，原來也沒註冊、沒銀行戶口、不是法人、沒理事、沒地址、不必報稅、不用交年報。他們聘了二十多個員工，借人家的戶口，收了2.36億港元捐款，大鑼大鼓搞了兩年，卻從沒有一個官員、一個政府部門，質疑過他們的合法性。

所以，看到這兩則新聞，大家不禁搖頭嘆息：有冇搞錯？

非法組織「民陣」叫囂了不是一個月、不是一年，而是19年；「612基金」非法眾籌的不是兩百、不是兩萬，而是兩億。政府這麼多部門、香港這麼多法例、18萬公務員，全是吃素的？

同人唔同命，同屬非法社團，自稱黑社會說句「我係和XX」就要拉，但自稱民陣卻可以上電視做英雄，滔滔發言。法律面前，真的人人平等嗎？

民陣2002年成立，原來沒向公司註冊處或警察牌照課註冊，簡言之，地位跟黑社會一樣，屬非法社團。奇就奇在，這個非法社團年年高調搞七一遊行、元旦遊行，警方次次派出警民關係組與他們開會，19年了，是有人做漏查冊工作？還是大家一見惡人就被嚇窒？難道舉一塊「民主」招牌，大家就要對非法行為視而不見？

視而不見的，還有食環署。19年來，「民陣」竟獲食環署簽發27個臨時小販牌照，讓他們可以攞正牌擺街站眾籌吸金，屈指算算，多少不明來歷的黑金就是這樣在合法牌照的掩護下，堂而皇之流進反對派口袋。

食髓知味，犯法19年壯大了反對派的膽，於是兩年前再由天主教前主教陳日君及大律師兼前立法會議員吳靄儀牽頭，搞了個非法眾籌「612基金」，作終極大吸金，這邊廂無法無天，那邊廂有法不依，為社會完美示範「誰大誰惡誰正確」。

不要怨敵人太強大，愈來愈多事例證明，不是反對派厲害，而是政府內太多人太多部門太長期不作為。指罵敵人的同時，有沒有問過自己，搞出今日大頭佛，誰要問責？

Video: China Peaceful Unification Western America USA change of Officers and Directors attended by Chinese Consul General in San Francisco 美西中國和平統一促進會新舊會長交接儀式, 中國舊金山領事館邹永红領事見證. Santa Clara, California on August 22 2021
https://vimeo.com/590772080
https://youtu.be/E9Mm_FPqZHo
https://www.facebook.com/100036400039778/posts/552569289299734/?d=n

Video: Where did the 2+ trillions dollars spent in Afghanistan went? Who are the real winners? 在阿富汗花費的 2 萬億美元去哪兒了？ 誰是真正的贏家？
The winners are US retired high ranking military officers, former government appointees, former US Presidents/VP and the biggest winners of all are the military establishments and arm dealers. 得益者是美國退休的高級軍官、前政府任命的官員、前美國總統/副總統等等, 而最大的贏家是軍事機構和軍火製造商.
Who is the biggest loser? Americans who went to the polls supported all the foreign wars since after WWII under the name of fake freedom democracy human rights and rules of laws. 誰是最大的輸家？ 被騙參加投票的美國人以虛假的自由民主人權和法治的名義支持二戰後的所有對外戰爭.
https://vimeo.com/590590700
https://youtu.be/Cm2S9Ti77rY
https://www.facebook.com/100036400039778/posts/552309132659083/?d=n

Video: Does China have democracy? Who said that China does not have democracy? Not only does China have democracy, but Chinese democracy is better than Western democracy! Chinese democracy takes care of the people verses US democracy takes care only the ruling classes, elites and military establishment. 中國有民主吗？誰說中國沒有民主，中國不但有民主， 而且中國民主還優於西方民主！中國民主照顧人民，而美國民主只照顧統治階級, 社會精英和軍火商!

德惟善政，政在養民 ！

https://vimeo.com/590573778
https://youtu.be/U54cwn2f6yE
https://www.facebook.com/100036400039778/posts/552278495995480/?d=n

這句古經文出自《尚書》的〈大禹謨〉，大意是說：有德的政府樹立良善公義的政治體系，所推行的政策以養護人民為準則！(A moral government establishes kind and righteous governance, the policies made by the government are to support and protect people.)

這是出自虞舜和大臣們對話的其中一段，大禹說：「於！帝念哉！德惟善政，政在養民。水、火、金、木、土、穀，惟修；正德、利用、厚生、惟和。九功惟敘，九敘惟歌。戒之用休，董之用威，勸之以九歌俾勿壞。」

最好的政府就是能夠「養護百姓、為民造福」的政府，不管這個政府是由全民選出來，或從政黨中挑選出來都可以。

沒有一個人是完美的，同理，也沒有一個政黨組織或政治主義是完美的。只要領導人願意奉獻自己、一切施政為老百姓著想，就是最好的政治！

中國和西方的政治和民主體制有何不同呢？ 聽聽這位外國學者怎麼說：

Simple & clear illustration of The Differences between Chinese democracy vs Western democracy system and the advantages of Chinese Democracy (簡單清晰的說明中國民主與西方民主的差別以及中國民主的優勢)