The Troubling Side of PropellerAds: A Closer Look at Complaints and Risks
PropellerAds promotes itself as a leading global advertising network, but behind the flashy dashboard and big traffic promises lies a pattern of user frustration, opaque policies, and concerning data practices. Reviews—particularly from the Chinese-speaking publisher community—paint a picture of a platform that operates more like a black box than a partner.
1. Arbitrary Account Bans and Frozen Balances
Numerous users report sudden account terminations with no clear explanation. After investing in campaigns or loading funds, accounts are locked under vague “policy violations,” often with no refund or further communication. Appeals are dismissed with canned responses like “we cannot disclose the reason for policy decisions.”
2. Invasive and Questionable KYC Practices
As part of their Know Your Customer (KYC) verification, PropellerAds demands sensitive documents including passports, real-time biometrics, and residential leases. Several users allege their data may have been misused or shared improperly—raising serious privacy red flags, especially in jurisdictions with strict data protection laws.
3. Lack of Transparency and Support
The platform provides no public list of demand partners and offers little clarity on how publisher or user data is shared downstream. The helpdesk offers templated responses, often deflecting responsibility to “the policy department,” leaving users in the dark.
4. History of Malvertising
PropellerAds has been linked to malware-related campaigns in the past, with domains like onclkds.com and oclasrv.com implicated in redirect schemes and fake browser update popups. Although they claim to monitor and ban such activity, incidents have continued to surface over time.
5. Polarizing Feedback
While some users—often experienced affiliates or those with direct manager support—report good results, a significant number of small-to-mid-sized users describe PropellerAds as untrustworthy. The risks of account lockouts, lost funds, and data exposure make it a poor fit for anyone expecting stability and fairness.
Conclusion
PropellerAds may offer a vast network and competitive pricing, but its lack of accountability, heavy-handed KYC demands, and history of questionable practices make it a hazardous choice for advertisers and publishers alike. Until the platform improves its transparency and user protections, caution is strongly advised.
Australia’s Dangerous Drift: How the Current Government is Failing Liberty and Justice
In recent years, Australia stood out as one of the few democratic countries willing to challenge the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) on global issues of consequence—particularly regarding human rights abuses, economic coercion, and the origins of COVID-19. However, under the current government, that momentum has not only slowed—it has reversed.
The present administration’s posture toward Beijing reflects a worrying blend of passivity, appeasement, and strategic naivety, couched in diplomatic language about “stability” and “economic cooperation.” Yet stability with authoritarian regimes is rarely stable. It often comes at the cost of truth, freedom, and accountability.
From Investigating Origins to Burying Responsibility
The prior government made history by calling for an independent international investigation into the origins of COVID-19. This was not merely about blaming China—it was about safeguarding the world from future pandemics by ensuring transparency and accountability.
Yet, the current government seems unwilling to uphold that legacy. Despite mounting evidence—including the U.S. Congress uncovering serious questions about the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) and its potential links to the Chinese military (PLA)—Canberra has fallen silent.
Is this silence strategic? Or is it complicity?
In contrast to their predecessors, today’s officials appear ready to “move on”—even if that means ignoring evidence, abandoning calls for accountability, and potentially burying Australia’s own past commitments to justice. More disturbingly, certain government-linked voices suggest Australia might even "share the burden of responsibility" for the pandemic with China—a position that would place Australia on the wrong side of international law, and possibly even in the dock of a future tribunal.
Scientific Cooperation with Authoritarian Militaries
At the same time, troubling patterns in scientific collaboration have emerged. There is credible evidence that Australian scientists have co-authored research papers with institutions directly linked to the Chinese military, such as:
-
The Third Military Medical University
-
The Academy of Military Medical Sciences
-
The People’s Liberation Army General Hospital (301 Hospital)
-
And entities under the Joint Logistics Support Force, a unit personally reorganized and empowered by Xi Jinping.
These are not mere civilian hospitals. They are integral parts of China’s wartime logistics system, involved in everything from biomedicine to battlefield readiness. Any scientific cooperation with such institutions—especially in areas like virology, genetics, or epidemiology—raises serious ethical and strategic concerns.
Has the Australian government thoroughly assessed the risks of these partnerships? Or does it consider such collaboration politically acceptable under the banner of "engagement"?
Is the Government Preparing to Become a Co-Defendant with China?
If Australia continues on this path—silencing calls for accountability, maintaining ambiguous scientific ties to military-linked Chinese labs, and prioritizing trade over truth—then it must also prepare for the consequences.
In the event that a future international tribunal holds China accountable for pandemic-related misconduct or human rights violations, will Australia be able to stand apart as a voice for justice?
Or will it be seen as a silent partner, an enabler, or worse—a co-defendant?
Conclusion: Appeasement Is Not Diplomacy
Real diplomacy defends values as well as interests. The current Australian government must reconsider its trajectory before it undermines the country’s hard-won credibility on the world stage. Australia must not become the Western democracy that traded moral clarity for market access.
It is time to choose: complicity with tyranny or solidarity with truth.
件数不是价值：为何中国的计件工资制度是假自由的陷阱
在中国工厂车间和监狱劳改系统中，计件工资制度已经被普遍采用，成为数千万劳动力的日常现实。在看似公平、透明的数字激励下，一种严重扭曲的劳动逻辑被悄然合理化。这种制度表面上给予劳动者“多劳多得”的自由，但实质却是一种对个体价值、自由意志和真实市场机制的系统压迫。
本文认为，计件工资制度并不天然等同于自由市场机制，尤其在一个国家强力干预、资本垄断、契约不对等的体制环境下，这种制度往往变成了压迫劳动者意志、转嫁企业风险、强化剥削效率的工具。
一、件数≠价值：劳动不是流水线
计件工资制度建立在一个简单前提之上：每一件产品的价值是均等的，因此劳动者的报酬也应按件统一计算。这种逻辑貌似效率至上，实际上完全忽略了劳动者主观状态、产品本身在不同情境中的真实价值差异。
劳动的强度与难度在生产过程中并非线性递增。一个工人在早上精神饱满时完成的前十件产品，与疲惫时强撑完成的最后十件，并不具备相同的身体与心理代价。边际付出递增、边际回报固定的制度，正是扭曲的开始。
同时，产品的实际市场价值是由最终消费者的主观评价决定的，并非由工厂中“生产了多少件”所决定。以件计价，只是管理的权宜之计，而非价值的真实体现。
二、“自愿”的幻象：谁能真正选择？
官方与企业常以“多劳多得”为口号，声称计件工资保护了工人的收入选择权。但事实是，在一个高压生产文化、欠缺工会代表、信息极不对称的体制中，所谓的“自由选择”，多半是逃无可逃的伪装。
工人若不完成最低任务件数，就可能遭遇罚款、羞辱、被调岗、失业，甚至“被自动辞退”。一些地方工厂更在用工合同中规避法定最低工资责任，仅以件数为考核标准。
在这种环境下，劳动不再是个体自我实现的途径，而是一种不得不接受的生存工具。人不再是劳动的主宰，而沦为数字化任务的延伸物。
三、计件不是市场：它是效率极权的变种
真正的市场机制，基于的是多方自由协商、选择退出的权利和对失败的责任承担。而在计件工资主导的劳动模式下，这些机制全部被架空。
-
工人不能决定生产什么、为谁生产；
-
不能与雇主协商定价；
-
无法通过个人判断调整策略；
-
更无法根据市场信号独立行动。
他们不过是执行命令的器械，是效率指挥棒下的工具人。
尤其在中国的出口加工体系中，这种制度与全球企业订单相结合，放大了廉价劳动力的价值抽取过程。件数计价看似市场逻辑，实则是计划经济逻辑与剥削机制的完美合谋：国家主导的产业结构控制下，个体选择完全被挤压在“干得快”与“干得死”之间。
四、比监狱更隐蔽的剥夺
在中国监狱系统中，计件劳动更是以“改造”为名，压榨为实。即使在表面更“自由”的工厂中，那些来自农村或外地的务工者，往往也处于类监禁的用工环境：封闭式管理、超长工作日、准军事化考核和对工资的层层扣押。
这不是自由的劳动交换，而是一种制度性的压迫与操控。
结语：不是真自由，而是假市场
我们必须认识到，计件工资制度并不天然代表市场经济，它更可能是高度集中控制之下的管理手段。它消解了人的判断、主观能动性和契约平等，最终只剩下“效率”两个字。而效率一旦脱离了自由的基础，只会成为剥削的代名词。
真正自由的劳动制度，必须让个体拥有选择任务、参与定价、决定退出的权利；必须承认价值来源于主观感知，而非数字产出；必须容许失败和创新的空间，而不是用件数捆绑所有人生。
当“自由”变成强制工作的遮羞布，当“市场”沦为压榨的工具时，我们就有责任拆穿这个幻象——因为它从来都不是真正的自由。
Why Trump’s Tariffs Fueled America’s Economic Revival: An Austrian Economics Perspective
When mainstream economists critique tariffs, they usually argue that tariffs distort markets, raise prices for consumers, and hurt economic efficiency. From the viewpoint of traditional economic theory, trade barriers are almost always seen as harmful interference in what should be a free flow of goods and capital.
Yet, contrary to this widespread narrative, the Trump administration’s imposition of tariffs did not choke off the U.S. economy. Instead, during his term, the economy experienced notable growth, record-low unemployment, and a revival in manufacturing and investment. How can this paradox be explained?
By applying the framework of Austrian economics—a school of thought emphasizing the importance of institutions, capital structure, and the entrepreneur’s discovery process—we gain a richer understanding that challenges orthodox assumptions.
1. Free Trade Requires a Level Playing Field
Austrian economics does not blindly endorse free trade under any circumstances. Its defense of market order rests on voluntary exchange between parties operating on equal institutional footing.
However, international trade with countries like China often takes place in a distorted setting characterized by:
-
Currency manipulation and artificial exchange rate suppression;
-
Heavy government subsidies to favored industries;
-
Forced technology transfers and intellectual property pressures;
-
Lack of transparent and enforceable property rights;
-
Political interference shaping market outcomes.
In such environments, what is called “free trade” is often a euphemism for asymmetric competition where one side operates under market rules and the other under political advantage.
Trump’s tariffs acted as a corrective institutional measure against these distortions, restoring some balance by forcing foreign exporters to internalize the true costs of their state-supported advantages.
2. Tariffs as a Filter for Market Signals
Mainstream theory suggests tariffs cause deadweight losses by raising prices and reducing consumption efficiency. Austrian economics urges a more nuanced view:
Economic efficiency depends on the accuracy of price signals. If prices are distorted by foreign subsidies or currency manipulation, tariffs may help restore more truthful signals about scarcity and cost.
In this sense, tariffs can be understood as a filter removing “false signals” imposed by unfair trade practices, allowing entrepreneurs to make better-informed decisions about investment and production.
3. Reactivating Entrepreneurial Discovery
Entrepreneurs are the driving force in Austrian economics: they spot opportunities, allocate resources under uncertainty, and drive market coordination.
When foreign competitors use dumping or unfair subsidies to flood the market, domestic entrepreneurs face “false scarcity” and may abandon industries prematurely.
Trump’s tariffs exposed these hidden opportunities by shielding certain sectors, allowing American entrepreneurs to rediscover viable markets, invest, innovate, and hire without the distorting pressure of subsidized foreign competition.
4. Rebuilding Domestic Capital Structure
Austrian economists emphasize the time structure of capital—how production unfolds over multiple stages and periods.
Long-term economic growth requires a well-structured capital base, including machinery, skills, and supplier networks. Decades of outsourcing and offshoring have hollowed out American capital structure, making the economy overly dependent on short-term consumption and financial flows.
By incentivizing domestic production and investment, tariffs helped rebuild this capital structure, fostering sustainable growth rather than ephemeral consumption booms.
5. Institutional Competition and Survival
While Austrian economics champions limited government and market autonomy, it recognizes that competing institutional frameworks can threaten market order.
Trading with a country that operates a fundamentally different, non-market economic system introduces systemic risks to the domestic market’s institutional integrity.
In this light, tariffs become a defense mechanism, preserving the institutional conditions necessary for true market processes to function.
6. Deficits and Fiscal Concerns Take a Back Seat
Critics highlight the growing fiscal deficits during the Trump years as evidence that tax cuts and tariffs were fiscally irresponsible.
Yet, Austrian economics focuses less on headline deficits and more on whether government resources are being misallocated away from productive, voluntary exchange to politically driven transfers.
If tariffs help maintain or restore market function by preventing destructive foreign subsidies, then the short-term fiscal cost may be outweighed by longer-term gains in market vitality and capital formation.
Conclusion
Trump’s tariffs should not be dismissed as mere protectionism or anti-market interference. Instead, from an Austrian economics viewpoint, they represent an institutional correction in a global economy rife with asymmetric rules and distortions.
By filtering distorted price signals, reactivating entrepreneurial discovery, and protecting domestic capital structures, tariffs contributed to the conditions that enabled America’s economic revival.
This analysis challenges conventional wisdom and invites a more careful consideration of how trade policy interacts with real-world institutional complexities beyond textbook models.
没人告诉你：川普的关税反而是自由市场的胜利！
一、奥地利学派并不等同于“教条自由贸易”
虽然奥地利经济学派原则上反对关税，但他们的反对是基于一般性假设：市场足够自由、制度环境平等、货币不扭曲、国家不操纵市场。
但现实世界中，贸易本身就可能被外部国家（如中国）严重扭曲，体现为：
-
汇率操纵（人为贬值）；
-
政府补贴出口行业；
-
强制技术转让；
-
环境与人权成本外部化；
-
非市场行为压制竞争对手。
奥地利学派强调“市场秩序”必须建立在制度对等和自愿交换的基础之上。如果交易不是建立在对等基础上，那么所谓“自由贸易”其实是强制性政治扭曲的结果，而不是市场的自发秩序。
川普的关税，某种意义上是对这种扭曲结构的“制度对价”调整，而非对真正自由贸易的否定。
二、关税是制度矫正而非资源浪费（在特殊条件下）
传统经济学认为：征税（包括关税）会让价格扭曲，从而导致“死重损失”与效率下降。但奥地利学派认为，效率本身不能脱离制度条件而谈。他们更关心的是：
资本结构是否被破坏？企业家发现过程是否受阻？市场是否丧失真实信息？
在对手国家系统性扭曲价格、通过国企倾销打击本国产业时，继续坚持“无条件自由贸易”，反而破坏了市场价格机制所依赖的信号系统。
奥地利学派强调市场必须能反映真实的机会成本和稀缺性。如果对手通过补贴、汇率操纵或强制技术输出等方式“伪造稀缺”，那么征税（关税）其实是对错误信号的过滤机制。
换句话说，川普的关税反而让美国产业的价格结构重新接近真实信号，为国内资本配置提供了更清晰方向。
三、川普关税激活了“企业家发现过程”
奥地利学派核心之一是：企业家精神的发现过程（entrepreneurial discovery process）。
当某个国家（如中国）通过不公平政策垄断某个行业（如稀土、钢铁、太阳能板等），本国企业家很难看到“可以进入这个行业”的真实机会。
川普的关税打破了“表面价格优势”，让美国企业家重新发现那些被掩盖的利润空间，重新启动投资、雇佣与本地化生产。这不是政府替企业做决策，而是用关税创造真实竞争空间，让市场机制恢复其功能。
这与凯恩斯式“政府投资拉动”不同——这里的激励不是通过财政赤字，而是解除结构性压制，让市场自然重构。
四、奥地利学派强调“时间结构”与本土资本形成
奥地利学派一大特色是强调资本的时间结构：真正的经济增长依赖于本地资本的“结构性积累”，而不是短期消费刺激。
如果长时间将制造业外包到扭曲性国家：
-
本国资本结构会变得单一化；
-
生产性资本被破坏；
-
劳动力逐渐技能退化；
-
整个市场结构变成“消费者-进口商-债务人”三位一体的脆弱循环。
川普的关税打破这一结构，促进了制造业回流、资本重建与本地积累。这完全符合奥地利学派的“跨期协调”理论：生产要延伸至更长时间线，而不是依赖即时低价消费。
五、奥地利学派重视制度竞争与国家结构的外部性
米塞斯与哈耶克虽然强调市场自治，但他们同时认识到，制度与制度之间的对抗是不可回避的现实。
如果一个国家是建立在自愿交换与产权保护的制度基础上，而对手国家（如中共政体）用强制体制与计划干预系统性削弱市场秩序，那么在全球市场上的“自由竞争”就变成了：
自由对不自由的开放，而不是自由之间的竞争。
奥地利学派的自由不是“天真”的自由，它必须植根于制度环境。关税不是“保护主义”，而是在制度不对称中维持市场的最低秩序条件。
六、总结逻辑：为何川普关税下美国经济仍能起飞
从奥地利学派的角度看，特朗普征收关税并不是破坏市场自由，而是在以下意义上重建了市场秩序：
-
纠正制度性扭曲，让价格重新反映真实稀缺性；
-
激活本国企业家的探索与试错能力，不再被倾销压制；
-
保护资本结构的长期积累与分层多样化，避免短视外包；
-
维护自由制度在全球经济中的生存空间，抵御制度侵蚀；
-
**减少对“债务—进口—消费”三角结构的依赖，重建实业基础。
Musk and Freedom: A Mirror in Austrian Economics
Elon Musk’s name has become synonymous with modern technological advancement and a kind of entrepreneurial heroism. He launches rockets, builds electric cars, challenges the frontiers of artificial intelligence, and often claims to defend “free speech,” especially after his acquisition of Twitter (now X). However, if we view freedom through the rigorous lens of Austrian economics, we begin to see that Musk’s relationship with liberty is far more complicated—and perhaps fundamentally contradictory.
For Austrian economists, freedom is not a slogan, nor is it a byproduct of technological innovation. It is rooted in individual self-ownership and voluntary exchange. Markets, in this view, are not just places of commerce, but spontaneous orders that arise when coercion is absent and private property is respected. Austrian thinkers oppose both centralized government control and the collusion between business and state power—what they call crony capitalism. Freedom is not an outcome—it is a process, a structure of constraints that protects the space for individual choice and responsibility.
From this standpoint, Musk does not embody freedom. He represents a distorted form of it. His companies do not grow purely through open-market competition, but flourish in ecosystems heavily shaped by state favors—tax incentives, preferential loans, regulatory shortcuts, and political goodwill. These arrangements are textbook examples of rent-seeking and state-capitalist distortions, precisely the kind of behavior Austrian economists warn against. While Musk’s public image is that of the self-made innovator, the underlying reality reveals a strategic dependence on government largesse.
More concerning is Musk’s ambiguous stance on free speech, a cornerstone of Austrian liberalism. A truly free discourse is essential for the evolution of decentralized knowledge—the very foundation of market order. Yet, Musk’s behavior in this domain suggests selective advocacy. He positions himself as a champion of unfiltered dialogue, yet appears notably restrained or silent when the speech in question might threaten certain political or business interests—especially in foreign markets with authoritarian leanings.
This double standard undermines the moral structure of freedom. In Austrian thought, consistency is key: freedom must apply even when it is inconvenient, costly, or dangerous. When a person uses the rhetoric of liberty but practices selective silence or soft censorship to maintain access to capital, markets, or political favors, they are not defending freedom—they are commodifying it.
Friedrich Hayek, a leading figure in the Austrian school, warned about the “fatal conceit” of technocrats who believe they can engineer society through reason alone. Musk, in many ways, is a modern version of this figure. His sweeping visions—colonizing Mars, integrating minds with machines, taming AI—suggest a faith in technological command over spontaneous order. This is not the humility of the Austrian economist, who trusts in dispersed knowledge and voluntary coordination. It is the hubris of the planner cloaked in innovation.
Freedom is not whatever makes someone rich or efficient or famous. It is a set of rules and norms that limit power—whether that power is held by states, corporations, or charismatic billionaires. By Austrian standards, Musk is not a beacon of liberty. He is the byproduct of a world where freedom has been compromised in the name of progress, and where rhetoric about liberty masks its gradual disappearance.
True freedom doesn’t rely on subsidies. It doesn’t adjust itself to please authoritarian regimes. It doesn’t censor selectively to protect profit. And it certainly doesn’t wear the mask of freedom while negotiating with power behind closed doors.
If Musk seems like a symbol of freedom today, it is only because we have drifted so far from what freedom truly means.
马斯克与自由：奥地利经济学派的一面镜子
埃隆·马斯克这个名字，几乎已经成为当代技术进步与“个人英雄主义”的代名词。他发射火箭，制造电动车，挑战人工智能的极限，也时常在公开平台上宣称自己捍卫“言论自由”，尤其是在收购Twitter（现X）之后，更是将“自由”挂在嘴边。然而，若我们站在奥地利经济学派的立场，对自由这一概念本身做出严格定义，再回过头审视马斯克的言行与商业实践，就会发现他与“自由”的关系远比表面上复杂得多。
奥地利学派的自由，并不是一句政治口号，也不是科技进步的附属品。对他们而言，自由根植于个体的自我拥有（self-ownership）与自愿交换，是市场在无强制状态下所形成的秩序。它既反对国家暴力，也警惕任何形式的权贵勾结——包括那些披着“企业家创新”外衣、实则靠政策倾斜起家的现代资本巨头。自由不是某种“结果”，而是一种“过程”，其核心在于约束强制力量，抵御计划主义冲动。
在这一框架下，马斯克代表的并不是自由，而是自由的异化形式。他的企业并非在真正的自由市场上自然成长，而是在高度扭曲的政治—经济结构中，通过与政府达成各种形式的合作——包括税收优惠、贷款支持、政策保护、甚至在地缘政治上的妥协——才得以迅速膨胀。这种现象，在奥地利学派看来，是一种典型的“权贵资本主义”（crony capitalism），它表面看起来是企业家精神的胜利，实则是对市场机制的破坏。
更重要的是，奥地利学派高度重视言论自由作为市场秩序的一部分。一个不被审查的思想空间，是自发秩序得以形成的思想土壤。因此，当一个自称“捍卫言论自由”的企业家，在面对某些政治力量时表现出明显的选择性沉默，甚至在实际操作中疑似压制对某些政权不利的信息传播，那么，他就已经背离了自由主义的最基本原则。这种“选择性自由”——对外宣称独立思考，对内却允许政治力量影响平台治理——不仅虚伪，更是自由的系统性腐蚀。
奥地利学派的哈耶克曾警告，技术精英的“理性主义妄想”，即试图用自己的计算和理性去规划社会，往往会走向新的集权主义。而马斯克恰恰是这一思想的现代化身。他不是一个信奉自发秩序的自由主义者，而是一个相信“工程秩序”的技术救世主。他的话语中不乏对人类命运的宏大叙述，对火星殖民、人工智能、脑机融合的高调构想，隐含着对技术统治的信仰。这与奥地利学派所追求的“有限知识、分散秩序、自主选择”的世界观格格不入。
一方面，马斯克确实推动了若干技术边界的拓展；但另一方面，他的崛起方式和政治姿态，却不断侵蚀自由主义赖以为生的制度基础。他是那种奥地利学派最警惕的角色——把自由当作旗帜，实则在权力与金钱之间斡旋；把自由当作营销手段，却不愿为真正的市场公平承担代价。
奥地利学派反对的不只是政府干预，更反对那些打着自由旗号，却通过国家机器自利的资本家。这种人比明确支持集权的人更具欺骗性，因为他们腐蚀了自由主义的核心伦理基础。
从理论上说：
- 他们破坏了价格机制的中立性；
- 扭曲了市场的资源配置；
- 在道德上使得“自由主义”沦为利益集团的掩护词；
- 奥地利学派认为，自由市场必须排斥一切“寻租行为”（rent seeking），任何企业若依赖国家资源以优于竞争对手，那它就是在破坏市场本身。
- 自由不再是道德立场或经济哲学，而是一种商品化的标签。这是对自由的工具化。
这正是奥地利学派所强调的“制度性虚伪”（institutional hypocrisy）与“技术权贵主义”（technocratic corporatism）的危险所在。
自由不是哪一个企业家自封的身份标签，而是一整套制度的逻辑与伦理秩序。如果我们以奥地利学派的原则为坐标系，不难看出：马斯克不是自由的代表人物，而是自由被现实扭曲后的产物。他之所以看起来接近自由，是因为我们所处的世界距离自由本身已经太远。
真正的自由，是不靠政府补贴就能竞争，是在任何政权面前都说真话，是技术不凌驾于道德的边界之上。而这一切，马斯克都尚未做到。
纽约华人策划协会（CPC）组织结构与潜在统战渗透路径分析报告
一、引言
纽约华人策划协会（Chinese-American Planning Council，简称CPC）作为美国华人社区的重要非营利组织，历经多次历史变迁。本文结合中国1980年代重要政策文件，对其潜在的统战渗透风险进行系统分析。
二、组织与身份认定
纽约华埠策划协会（Chinatown Planning Council, Inc.）1965年成立，1988年更名为纽约华人策划协会（CHINESE-AMERICAN PLANNING COUNCIL, INC.），更名背景与中国改革开放政策和大陆移民潮相关。组织人事决策可能以多数票机制为基础，关键岗位（秘书处、财务、宣传等）控制将直接影响组织政策走向。
三、1980年代中国相关政策文件摘录与推理
（一）中共中央组织部《改进接转出国留学、劳务人员中党员组织关系办法的通知》（组通字〔1984〕15号）
-
建立驻外劳务公司党委管理党员关系制度；
-
出国时间两年以上人员可发展党员，强化党员管理与党费缴纳；
-
强调驻外使领馆党委的专兼职干部党的工作和组织建设。
推理：中共对出国人员建立系统的组织关系管理和政治教育机制，构筑海外统战网络。
（二）国务院1984年国发〔1984〕185号文件（自费出国留学人员管理规定）
核心内容摘录：
-
自费出国留学是人才培养和对外开放政策的重要组成部分，政治上与公费留学人员一视同仁。
-
自费留学人员学历、年龄、工作年限不限，只需合法手续及入学许可。
-
在职人员可申请停薪留职或退职，自费留学回国工作者工龄可连续计算。
-
硕士、博士学位者回国国际旅费由国家提供。
-
自费人员回国后待遇、工资、职称评定与公费留学人员同等待遇。
-
自费留学人员配偶、子女出国探亲按公安部门规定办理。
-
出国前后单位和驻外使领馆须主动介绍政策、保持联系，关心学习生活。
-
自费留学人员若符合条件可转为自费公派留学人员，享受部分公派待遇。
-
高级干部及外事工作人员子女配偶出国办理有专门规定。
-
徇私舞弊者将严肃处理，涉及司法追究。
推理：1984年国务院文件制度化支持自费留学，政治管理与公费留学同等重视，体现出对所有出国人员实施政治统战的意图和制度基础。
（三）1986年国家教育委员会《出国留学人员工作的若干暂行规定》
-
明确出国留学工作是国家开放和人才培养重要部分；
-
建立派出单位与驻外使馆联动管理体系；
-
加强对留学生的思想政治教育和组织管理；
-
公派、自费留学人员待遇和管理区别与联系；
-
明确公派出国留学生签订协议，履行回国服务义务；
-
规定公派人员回国休假及其配偶探亲的具体政策。
推理：通过严密组织与管理体系，形成一套对留学人员的综合统战控制体系。
四、纽约华人策划协会的潜在统战渗透风险
-
政策文件显示，中共对海外人员（留学生、劳务人员等）有明确的政治组织管理框架，确保党员身份和政治影响力的延续。
-
华人策划协会涵盖大量来自大陆的移民及其家庭成员，极易成为统战网络的潜在节点。
-
协会内多数表决机制及关键岗位的控制，可能被中共亲信利用以影响协会决策与资源配置。
-
驻外使馆、劳务公司党委等机构通过党员组织关系管理实现对海外群体的政治把控，推测CPC可能存在类似渗透。
-
自费留学人员政治管理与公费留学同等重视，体现中共希望将所有华人留学群体纳入统一统战轨道。
-
该组织作为华人社区主要社会服务平台，其潜在被统战利用的风险尤为重要。
-
华人策划协会旗下有人瑞中心，2014年被中国国务院侨务办公室评选为全球十家“华社之光”代表社团之一，获得中国共产党官方高度认可。
五、总结与建议
-
推测纽约华人策划协会具备被中共统战系统渗透的结构性风险。这不仅来自历史背景和组织结构，更源于中共1980年代以来对海外华人及留学人员的系统化管理和统战安排。
-
推测纽约华人策划协会具备被中共统战系统渗透的结构性风险。这不仅来自历史背景和组织结构，更源于中共1980年代以来对海外华人及留学人员的系统化管理和统战安排。
六、附件：重要政策文件原文出处
-
中共中央组织部《关于改进接转出国留学、劳务人员中党员组织关系办法的通知》（组通字〔1984〕15号）
-
国务院《国发〔1984〕185号文件》（1984年12月26日颁布，2008年废止）
-
国家教育委员会《出国留学人员工作的若干暂行规定》（1986年12月8日）
中共中央组织部《关于改进接转出国留学、劳务人员中党员组织关系办法的通知》（组通字〔1984〕15号）
国务院《国发〔1984〕185号文件》（1984年12月26日颁布，2008年废止）
国家教育委员会《出国留学人员工作的若干暂行规定》（1986年12月8日）
Draft of Preliminary International Criminal Indictment Against the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), People’s Liberation Army (PLA), and affiliated organs
I. Introduction
This indictment is submitted on behalf of victims and affected parties to allege serious international crimes committed by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), and related state agencies. These crimes encompass mass murder, war crimes, crimes against humanity, violations of international treaties, and customary international law, including acts that caused mass civilian suffering and death, biological weapons development and use, suppression of fundamental freedoms, and medical neglect.
II. Jurisdiction
This draft asserts jurisdiction based on:
-
The principle of universal jurisdiction over grave breaches of international humanitarian law and crimes against humanity;
-
The applicability of customary international law and treaties ratified by China at the times of the alleged crimes, including:
-
Hague Conventions (1899, 1907)
-
Geneva Protocol (1925)
-
United Nations Charter (1945)
-
Nuremberg Principles (1945)
-
Biological Weapons Convention (1984)
-
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR, 1998 ratification)
-
International Health Regulations (2005)
-
III. Parties
Plaintiff: Victims and affected families of the CCP’s actions, including but not limited to victims of COVID-19, forced famine, war crimes, and political repression.
Defendants: The Chinese Communist Party, the People’s Liberation Army, and affiliated government entities responsible for directing and executing the alleged crimes.
IV. Statement of Facts and Allegations
1. Mass Murder of Gu Shunzhang’s Family (1931)
The CCP leadership, under directive of senior officials including Zhou Enlai, orchestrated the capture and execution of Gu Shunzhang’s entire family — approximately 30 individuals, including women and children — employing brutal methods such as dismemberment, burning, and disposal of bodies in wells. Internal CCP documents state: “全部就地解决，女人孩子一个不留” (“All to be eliminated on site, leaving no women or children alive.”)
Legal Implication: Violates the Hague Conventions’ protections for civilians (Hague IV, Articles 46, 50) and Nuremberg Principles on crimes against humanity.
2. War Crimes During Anti-Japanese War (1937–1945)
While publicly resisting Japanese invasion, CCP forces engaged in military strategies that preserved their strength rather than actively fighting the enemy, preparing for future civil conflict. After Japan’s surrender, CCP forces appropriated biological warfare facilities of Unit 731, protecting Japanese war criminals and integrating them into CCP research. CCP records note these individuals as “有用，应予保护使用” (“useful, should be protected and utilized”).
Legal Implication: Violations of Hague Convention IV (Articles 23, 46), Tokyo Charter, and customary law prohibiting harboring war criminals and misuse of biological weapons.
3. Siege of Changchun (1948)
CCP forces besieged the city of Changchun for five months, cutting off all supply routes, resulting in starvation and death of an estimated hundreds of thousands of civilians. The siege was praised in CCP military literature as a “成功的人民战争范例” (“successful example of people’s war”).
Legal Implication: Violation of customary law prohibiting starvation of civilians (Hague Regulations, Article 50), and Nuremberg Principles on crimes against humanity.
4. Forced Grain Requisition in Sichuan (1950s)
Under Deng Xiaoping’s administration, massive grain requisition was enforced, forcibly seizing food from local farmers, exacerbating hunger and suffering. Such acts amounted to pillage prohibited by the Hague Convention IV (Article 28).
5. The Great Chinese Famine (1958–1962)
Policies including the Great Leap Forward resulted in catastrophic famine causing tens of millions of deaths. Mao Zedong’s statement, “人是要死人的，不死是不行的” (“People must die; it cannot be avoided.”) at the 1959 Lushan Conference reflects state awareness of human cost.
Legal Implication: Constitutes crimes against humanity (Nuremberg Principle VI(b)), including extermination by deliberate policy.
6. Biological Weapons Development and Use
CCP engaged in the development of biological weapons, integrating former Japanese Unit 731 scientists and maintaining active research, in violation of the 1925 Geneva Protocol (ratified 1952) and 1972 Biological Weapons Convention (ratified 1984). CCP military media acknowledge live-agent drills to test defense capabilities.
7. COVID-19 Pandemic: Origin Concealment and Obstruction
COVID-19 emerged in Wuhan in late 2019. CCP and PLA possessed early knowledge of human-to-human transmission but delayed notification to the WHO and global community, violating International Health Regulations (2005). Independent researchers (such as Dr. Li-Meng Yan) allege the virus originated from military lab modification of bat coronaviruses related to the Zhoushan bat virus, supported by CCP's official papers and public reporting. CCP’s concealment and obstruction contributed to the global spread and loss of life.
- COVID-19 emerged in Wuhan, China, in late 2019 and rapidly became a global pandemic.
- The Defendant had knowledge of the virus's existence and human-to-human transmissibility by 1 Jan 2020, but delayed public disclosure and international notification, violating international health obligations.
- On January 18 and 19, 2020, Lude Media publicly alleged that COVID-19 was capable of human-to-human transmission and originated from a military laboratory; the Chinese government officially acknowledged human-to-human transmission only on January 20, 2020, one day after these claims began circulating in Chinese-language media.
- Evidence suggests that the CCP and PLA controlled and restricted access to critical data, hampering global response efforts.
- Independent researchers, including Dr. Li-Meng Yan and the outlet Lude Media, have alleged that COVID-19 originated from genetic modification of bat coronaviruses, specifically related to the Zhoushan bat virus, potentially within a military laboratory setting and was released in a military drill or actual combat training.
- Official records from the CCP, including documents authored by CCP officials and PLA officers, contain information that supports the possibility of such military involvement.
- The Defendant’s actions and omissions contributed to the uncontrolled spread of COVID-19
8. Suppression of News, Free Speech, and Network Control
Since the early 2000s, CCP has implemented censorship programs (“Golden Shield Project,” “Great Firewall”) systematically suppressing dissent, restricting information flow, and monopolizing media channels, violating ICCPR Articles 19 and 21 on freedom of expression and assembly. This censorship severely obstructs domestic and international awareness, accountability, and economic fairness.
9. Imprisonment and Medical Neglect of Liu Xiaobo
Liu Xiaobo, Nobel Peace Laureate, was imprisoned for peaceful activism. CCP denied medical treatment leading to his death in custody. Official CCP media describe his death as “自然死亡” (“natural death”), despite evidence of medical neglect. Violates UN Convention Against Torture (Articles 1,2), ICCPR Articles 6 and 7.
10. Cover-up and Repression after 2008 Sichuan Earthquake
CCP authorities obstructed investigation into substandard “tofu-dreg” school construction responsible for thousands of child deaths, suppressed protests, and censored coverage. Official internal directives forbid family gatherings and information dissemination to “防止敌对势力炒作” (“prevent hostile forces from exploiting”). Violates ICCPR Articles 6 and 19.
11. Coercive Family Planning Policies
Implementation of forced abortions and sterilizations under the one-child policy constitute grave violations of bodily autonomy and reproductive rights, infringing ICCPR Articles 7 and 17, and CEDAW Article 16.
V. Legal Counts Summary
Crime Legal Basis Applicable Treaty / Principle Mass murder of civilians Crimes against humanity Nuremberg Principles, Hague Conventions War crimes including siege tactics War crimes Hague Conventions, Tokyo Charter Crimes against humanity (famine) Crimes against humanity Nuremberg Principles Biological weapons development Prohibition of biological weapons Geneva Protocol (1925), BWC (1984) Violation of International Health Regulations Breach of international health obligations IHR (2005) Suppression of free speech and censorship Human rights violations ICCPR Articles 19, 21 Torture and medical neglect Prohibition of torture UNCAT, ICCPR Articles 6, 7 Repression and censorship after disaster Human rights violations ICCPR Articles 6, 19 Forced family planning Violation of bodily autonomy ICCPR, CEDAW
| Crime | Legal Basis | Applicable Treaty / Principle |
|---|---|---|
| Mass murder of civilians | Crimes against humanity | Nuremberg Principles, Hague Conventions |
| War crimes including siege tactics | War crimes | Hague Conventions, Tokyo Charter |
| Crimes against humanity (famine) | Crimes against humanity | Nuremberg Principles |
| Biological weapons development | Prohibition of biological weapons | Geneva Protocol (1925), BWC (1984) |
| Violation of International Health Regulations | Breach of international health obligations | IHR (2005) |
| Suppression of free speech and censorship | Human rights violations | ICCPR Articles 19, 21 |
| Torture and medical neglect | Prohibition of torture | UNCAT, ICCPR Articles 6, 7 |
| Repression and censorship after disaster | Human rights violations | ICCPR Articles 6, 19 |
| Forced family planning | Violation of bodily autonomy | ICCPR, CEDAW |
VI. Relief Requested
Plaintiff respectfully requests a tribunal to:
-
Initiate a full and impartial investigation into the above allegations;
-
Order the production of relevant documents and evidence by the CCP and affiliated bodies;
-
Hold accountable responsible individuals and entities through criminal prosecution;
-
Award reparations to victims and families;
-
Recommend international sanctions and mechanisms to prevent recurrence;
-
Facilitate independent monitoring of CCP compliance with international law.
【2025年7月12日 “路德社-闫博士说”直播】 (会员节目）社会原子化+信息封锁+恐惧内化=“韭菜”可控的秘密
【2025年7月12日 “路德社-闫博士说”直播】 (会员节目）社会原子化+信息封锁+恐惧内化=“韭菜”可控的秘密
Exposure Report: The Hidden Ties Between Wong, Wong & Associates and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP)
In the Chinese-American legal community, Attorney Xiaofu Wong and Attorney Ying Wong-Chen have long been regarded as prominent figures and respected leaders. However, a deeper investigation reveals extensive ties between their law firm and the Chinese Communist Party's (CCP) United Front system, as well as close associations with official PRC institutions in the United States. This evidence suggests they have functioned as important legal and propaganda instruments for the CCP's operations abroad.
I. Covert Ties to the CCP United Front System
Attorney Xiaofu Wong has held core leadership positions in numerous Chinese-American organizations, including:
-
Director and Chief Legal Counsel of the National Chinese Planning Council of America
-
Legal Advisor to the Hong Kong Association of New Jersey
-
Founder and Chairman of the Sino-American Lawyers Association in New York
Investigations show these organizations maintain close affiliations with the United Front Work Department (UFWD) of the CCP and the All-China Federation of Returned Overseas Chinese—both of which coordinate overseas Chinese communities to promote the CCP’s political agenda abroad.
Wong has also led delegations to the PRC State Council Overseas Chinese Affairs Office, meeting directly with senior officials and positioning himself as a "bridge" between China and overseas Chinese legal networks.
List of Key Titles Held by Attorney Xiaofu Wong:
-
Consultant Professor, Jilin University
-
Director and Legal Advisor, Hong Kong Association of New York
-
Founder & Board Chair, Sino-American Lawyers Association
-
Member, Asian-American Bar Association of New York
-
Member, National Committee on U.S.-China Relations
-
Selection Panelist, U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines
-
Chair, 2000 Democratic Party NYC Judicial Screening Panel
-
Former Director & Chief Legal Counsel, National Chinese Planning Council
-
Former Member, New Jersey Bar Association
-
Legal Advisor, New Jersey Hong Kong Club
-
Member, NYC Mayor Giuliani’s 1993 Inaugural Committee
-
Representative, NY State Democratic Party Judicial Qualification Committee (1991)
-
Former Member, NY State Democratic Committee
-
Retired U.S. Marine Corps Veteran
II. Attorney Ying Wong-Chen and the Legal United Front Platform
Attorney Ying Wong-Chen, President of the Sino-American Lawyers Association and financial advisor to NJ State Assembly Majority Leader Linda Greenstein, plays an active role in U.S.–China legal exchanges. While her work appears focused on legal service delivery, the Association she leads has been identified as a key United Front platform in the U.S., frequently collaborating with the PRC Consulate in New York to organize legal and cultural outreach programs targeting the Chinese diaspora.
III. Frequent Participation in PRC Government Activities
Public records show that Attorney Xiaofu Wong has been repeatedly invited to speak at official CCP events organized by institutions such as the Ministry of Justice of the PRC and the Law School of Jilin University. In 2015, he led the "U.S. Chinese Lawyers Delegation" to China and met directly with top officials from the State Council’s Overseas Chinese Affairs Office, signaling his high standing in CCP-affiliated legal diplomacy.
Wong has also served as keynote speaker at PRC Consulate-organized seminars on consular protection and legal education for Chinese students and immigrants in the U.S.—activities often laced with pro-CCP political messaging. His role in these events makes him a key front-line figure in China’s overseas legal propaganda efforts.
IV. Close Collaboration with PRC Consulates
Wong has appeared publicly alongside high-ranking PRC diplomats, including the Deputy Consul General of the PRC in New York, at community events such as Lunar New Year galas—hallmarks of CCP United Front activities. Though Attorney Ying Wong-Chen maintains a lower public profile, she has regularly participated in U.S.-China legal exchange forums involving PRC officials.
V. Legal Warfare and Propaganda Roles
While Wong, Wong & Associates specializes in areas such as transnational trade, IP law, and commercial litigation, there is no public record of the firm taking on cases opposing CCP interests. On the contrary, the firm has represented numerous Chinese individuals and companies, and has acted as a quiet but strategic legal ally of CCP-linked entities.
Attorney Wong has used appearances at official PRC forums to defend China’s legal system and promote its global image. This alignment aids the CCP’s global narrative-building and soft power expansion, consistent with United Front objectives.
📂 Case Study: CEFC and the Biden Family Connection
In 2018, Wong & Wong filed a lawsuit in New York State court against CEFC New York International Holdings LLC, a U.S. shell company affiliated with CEFC China Energy—a firm closely tied to the Chinese military-industrial complex and Chinese intelligence.
CEFC Chairman Ye Jianming maintained business ties with Hunter Biden, and U.S. congressional investigations revealed that millions of dollars were transferred from CEFC to members of the Biden family. CEFC executive Patrick Ho (He Zhiping) was convicted of international bribery in U.S. federal court, and had direct contact with Hunter Biden.
The lawsuit confirms that Wong & Wong provided legal services to CEFC, reportedly in areas including mergers, investments, and corporate structuring. The firm's involvement in this case further demonstrates its position within sensitive CCP-linked operations inside the U.S., potentially even in proximity to U.S. political influence activities.
VI. Conclusion
Attorneys Xiaofu Wong and Ying Wong-Chen are not only leading figures in Chinese-American legal circles but also key operatives in the CCP’s overseas United Front network. Through their roles in Chinese community organizations, participation in PRC state activities, and relationships with Chinese diplomatic missions, they have advanced the CCP’s strategic objectives abroad—serving as vital actors in the Party’s legal warfare, political messaging, and soft power projection within the United States.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
