On the Electrodynamics of Inciting Defection
(Chinese Edition: 论策反的电动力学)
(The original text aims to construct a systematic procedure in order to lead to the defection of people inside the Wall. I translate it in hope of helping English readers have a better understanding of the ridiculousness of the CPC.)
(The title is a neta to the famous On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies, and because the web page is based on electronics, it won't hurt to call it Electrodynamics.)
Above all, to make people inside the Wall know the truth, it's unwise to bombard them with those jaw-dropping things. People inside the Wall are affected more or less by brainwashing imposed by the CPC, and consequently they might hold an aversion to those things. So if we imposed our will on them, chances are that it would be counterproductive. I recommend we begin with trifles, which are irrational. Then they might have an urge for more, and it would be our chance to guide them, provoke their thought and render them willing to explore the truth.
Chapter 1: The Search Engines
I'd like to start with the search engines. Ask: "How do you think a good search engine is supposed to be? What results do you expect to get from a good search engine?"
The answer might be "comprehensive" and stuff, or, if he or she is discreet, "it depends on the content you search for". Anyway, goad him or her into the latter (through, say, answering it yourself). Make sure he or she bears it in mind.
Let him or her open a browser (for better effect I recommend a computer browser) and search for "冠冕堂皇" using a censored search engine (As a matter of fact, every engine available within the Wall is censored. It's OK if you like other idioms. I choose this one to satirize the CPC).
This is the result layout of Baidu. Please notice that the results are almost about the meaning, and that there are relative contents displayed at the right and the bottom of the page.
Ask: "Are the results almost about the meaning? Do they live up to your expectations? Look at the left and the bottom, are there relative contents?" (One at a time)
And sum up: "Is this what it's like to search for an idiom?"
All the answers are supposed to be positive.
Then let him or her search for "通商宽农" (or other idioms that Xi Jinping mispronounced).
This time the results are all about Xi's citation of the idiom.
Ask: "Do the results live up to your expectations?"
Remind him or her that the number of results is extremely small, and that there are no contents at the right and the bottom. He or she will realize something is amiss. So we proceed: "When we search for an idiom, we basically want to know its meaning. Even if it is cited by Xi, the results about the meaning shouldn't be blocked."
Next, the autocorrection function. Let him or her search for "吉成思汗" (the proper name is "成吉思汗").
Above all results reads "results for '成吉思汗' are displayed".
Remind him or her that the search engine has autocorrected the misspelling, that the results are OK, and that there are contents at the right and the bottom. Let him or her search for "格萨尔王" and take a quick look at the web page (lest he or she doesn't know this person). Then search for "萨格尔王". It will suffice to let him or her make a comparison.
Ask: "Are these results reasonable?"
On getting the answer, we can tell him or her the reason: "Xi in his speech mispronounced '通商宽农' as '通商宽衣', '格萨尔王' as '萨格尔王'. It's commonplace to mispronounce something, and few will care about it, but the CPC is determined to censor these results." (We can mention that Trump mispronounced a place name and the video was uploaded by the CPC on Bilibili, the Chinese counterpart of YouTube.)
Chapter 2: The Amendment of the Constitution
A report on the fact that Russia was going to hold a referendum on the amendment of the Constitution.
Show the image, with the caption "The Xinhua News Agency dare report?"
If he or she feels puzzled, ask: "How did the CPC amend the Constitution in 2018?"
Mention that the amendment in 1982 aimed to prevent one-party authoritarianism and life tenures, and that in 2018 the CPC wrote its regime into the Constitution and removed the limitation that the President shall serve no more than two consecutive terms.
"The elected delegates voted." should be the answer. Then ask: "Whom do the delegates represent?"
So-called "the people" or "the citizens". Ask: "Is any delegate really voted by the people? Or let me rephrase it. Have you ever heard that your neighborhood is electing delegates?"
Then we get to the point. Of course, he or she might be discreet enough to say: "We seldom have encounters with the delegates. As a result, we have to rely on the mass media to gain info. Then media manipulation will cause unfairness."
Rebut: "How could the people you seldom have encounters with represent you?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bquXjhUN0U
Show him or her this video (The VOA interviewed some delegates in 2018 on their viewpoints on the amendment. The delegates equivocated, digressed or pretended not to hear).
"So it is stutterers, mutes, and deaf people that represent you!"
Ding Zhen is a Tibetan boy with little schooling, who was hyped up to divert the public attention. At that time, he dominated the top news everyday and was elected local delegate.
"Oh, plus illiterates."
If further discussion on this aspect is necessary, then feel free to do it yourself, because we've gain the advantage. We can "appreciate" some bills proposed by the delegates that "represent the will of the people" (they are available online even within the Wall, so I won't provide relevant materials here).
Many people hold the attitude: "I'm fine with anything so long as it's good." Then we can finish the sentence: "Which means I don't care about who the public servants are, I only care about whether them do well."
We continue: "If they do well, they keep serving the people, and what if not?"
The most reasonable answer should be "to replace them". We fill him or her in on Han Kuo-yu, who was the former Mayor of Kaohsiung and was recalled by a city vote. Some mainland netizens were surprised at the fact that a mayor could be recalled by the people. Their surprise hinted that it was believed that no officer in mainland could be recalled by the people.
The reason is plain: the appointment and removal power is in the hands of those in higher places. We take a look at how those people exert the power.
On the one hand, when some accidents occurred, they immediately recalled involved subordinates without giving them any chance to salvage the situation. "Replacing the responsible people and finding ways to settle the problem, which is of top priority? Did the problem occur just because of those people? As the local leadership, they are bound to be responsible, but should they take all the responsibility?" (One at a time)
Waiting for his or her response, and then: On the other hand, those who implemented foolish policies (like there mustn't be a single leaf on the ground) were never recalled. Obviously this problem was caused because of them. "Are you willing to have those who put forward such ridiculous policies serve the people?"
We can impress him or her more by: "The two kinds of people, which one should be recalled? And what's the truth? Have you ever heard that any officer who was responsible for some accident wasn't recalled? Have you ever heard that any officer who implemented foolish policies was recalled?"
With these as foundation, we get back to the amendment of the Constitution: "Referendum in Russia, and the so-called 'delegates' voting in China. The people were supposed to be acquainted with the details of the amendment. But have you ever seen any discussion on it? Why didn't everyone discuss such an important amendment? I'm not saying we need a referendum. I'm saying at least everyone has the right to discuss." (One at a time)
If we get the answer "Opinions vary from person to person, which causes chaos", rebut: "Then they insist on their own views and do whatever they please? Is this being answerable to the people?"
Guide him or she into admitting the necessity of discussions through, say, "what's the use of holding a congress?", "Are the views from several people suitable on a national scale?" Then ask: "It is true that opinions vary, so how should we treat these opinions, especially the opposing ones?"
Basically, it's "Listening to both sides and you'll be enlightened". We can further the discussion, or sum it up: "Even though the ultimate decision making power is in the hands of the minority, everyone is supposed to be able to at least express individual viewpoints and reasons. But what's the reality?"
At last, let him or her give an individual description of the Two Sessions. Tell him or her that the Two Sessions are actually "the Conference of the Parents of the International Students and the Congress of the Australian, American and Canadian Proprietors". With this term arises curiosity. Ask: "Which country's nationality do you think the children of high-ranking officials hold?"
Whatever his or her answer is, tell him or her: "Over 91% of the Central Committee membership have their family members hold foreign nationality (this is the data in 2010), and now almost every officer does so. That's why it's called the Conference of the Parents of the International Students."
Ask: "Why don't the officers disclose their incomes and assets?"
Whatever his or her answer is, tell him or her: "Because a large amount of their assets are abroad. They set up shell corporations and transfer assets, so they are able to run away in due course. That's why it's called the Congress of the Australian, American and Canadian Proprietors."
Chapter 3: Servility
Shenzhen stipulated that a child must have local household registration to go to local school, and many parents, most of whom were migrant workers, knelt at the entrance of the government building.
Show the image and ask: "Why did they kneel?"
We can delve into it. Just bear in mind that our trump is the fact that "the owners of the country" knelt to "the public servants".
Let him or her search for "周秀云" (a police officer trod on her hair for an hour, which led to her death). Make a comparison with George Floyd: "American officer killed a person, and some Americans protested, and some Chinese people supported them. Why didn't the Chinese protest after their fellow was killed?" (We can add one sentence: "So actually it is the US that you truly love!")
“Some say America emphasizes individual while China emphasizes community. Then why is it that American people who emphasize individual were willing to protest for someone with no connection to them, while Chinese people who emphasize community were indifferent toward their own fellow?”
After a little discussion, we can point out where the rub is: the US teaches its people freedom and democracy, although there exists discrimination, while China teaches its people to completely follow the CPC and creates an atmosphere of not caring about others.
Then we deal with the government's response: "In June, 2020, Trump threatened to resort to military forces to suppress the protests, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of China strongly condemned it. Although Trump never really did it, if he had, we should've been proud. We always hear that in some aspects the US has a several-decade advantage over China, but we should've said that China had a several-decade advantage over the US this time."
Because we adopted a teasing tone, he or she might be curious and less resistant when it comes to 1989. Of course no need to disclose details here. We can say: "In short, the CPC used its army to suppress the protests, causing many injuries and deaths. I in fact wanted to see how China's media would've reported on Trump's suppression."
Let him or her improvise, and we just state our view: "I think the CPC would've asked the media to keep a low profile. Look. What if the whole nation knew by accident that their party had done it before?"
Also, we make a comparison: "Trump was risking his career when saying it. It was months before the election. If he had dared to suppress the people, the people would've voted him down. (And as a matter of fact he was voted down. We don't discuss fraud here.) However, Li Peng, the former Premier, began his ministry in 1987, directed the army to crush the protests in 1989, and ensured his position until 1998, when he was elected Chairman of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress. He finally retired in 2003." (One at a time)
Chapter 4: Hong Kong
The People's Daily and the Global Times released this image. It reads "This is a war between maintaining rule of law in Hong Kong and trampling it; This is a war between maintaining prosperity and stability in Hong Kong and destroying them; This is a war between maintaining 'One Country, Two System' and annihilating it."
Show the image, with the caption "I curse myself".
Ask: 2020-1997=?
Waiting for his or her answer, and say: "National standard answer: 50."
Probably, he or she is either muted or puzzled. We explain: "The CPC once said Hong Kong' governance would remain unchanged for at least 50 years. Hong Kong would retain everything except foreign affairs. The national security law was passed in 2020, which deprived Hong Kong of its autonomy and demanded punishment for riot independentists."
Show the image, and explain: "These are the five demands the protesters put forward. Which one does entail independence? But the CPC just called them independentists."
Then we talk about reports: "Reports within the Wall were basically about 'rioters sabotaged public facilities and hurt others', but there are always some troublemakers in every protest. They are the minority."
We can spell it out. Out of 7 million Hong Kong people, about 2 million were protesting (the number was given by Hong Kong people, and we can deduce it: the CPC said the number was several hundred thousand, and the CPC tended to downplay it, so the real number is supposed to exceed 1 million). Then we ask: "If the majority of protesters had been rioters as the CPC had claimed, would Hong Kong have been what it's like now instead of having been plunged into total chaos? As a matter of fact, the rioters were the minority. The CPC only reported to gain an advantage, which caused the delusion that there were many rioters."
A report in 2020 that Hong Kong government would give 10,000 yuan to every major citizen. One netizen commented: "You think of them as rubbish, and they think of you as slaves."
People commenting have helped us say it. (Please forgive me for not translating all comments.)
Chapter 5: Shards of Info
As I've said, the CPC only reports to gain an advantage. As a result, a lot of pieces of news are totally OK if you read them separately, but are ridiculous if you read them together. I doubt that the brainwashed little pinks are able to logically find connections between different reports. I give several cases.
On May 29, Li Keqiang said that 6 hundred million people had a monthly income of only 1,000 yuan; On July 24, the Director of the National Bureau of Statistics said that the goal of moderate prosperity had been basically achieved.
It only took two months from 6 hundred million people with 1,000 yuan a month to moderate prosperity, Amazing China! (In fact, by May, 2021, the CPC hasn't officially announced the realization of moderate prosperity.)
In June, 2020, when another outbreak hit a market in Beijing, the media at first said it is caused by salmon, and even put the news of terrible foreign salmon breeding on the top of the hot news.
Please notice the top news at the right. The CPC's handling was subtle. All reports were about the horrible breeding conditions, and none ever said salmon contained viruses. Then the netizens would say what the CPC wanted to say.
But several days later.
The report said that over 30% of confirmed cases had connection with the beef and lamb section.
Hey, salmon, why don't you confess?
Two more pieces of news concerning the outbreak.
The first said all indigenous cases were in Beijing, and the second said a county in Xiong'an (located in Hebei, which surrounds Beijing) was locked down.
If all the cases were in Beijing, why was a county in Hebei locked down? It would be more reasonable for Hebei to enhance entry and exit management.
And the vaccines.
The first said Chinese vaccines would be free globally, and the second said it would take less than 1,000 yuan for Chinese people to get vaccinated.
Free globally (excluding China). It is true that at last it became free nationwide, but the CPC has more ways to make profits (say, massive nucleic acid testing). By the way, the phase-3 results of all other vaccines have been published in peer-reviewed academic journals, while none of Chinese vaccine does so. Also, the CPC suggests not to do antibody testing after vaccination, so the real efficacy of Chinese vaccine is questionable.
Hu Xijin's flopping speech. (I don't know what the adjective should be. The meaning is to fail because of accident or contradiction. It's "翻车" in Chinese.)
The first said China's asset declaration system was so powerful that it was very hard to conceal one's assets deliberately, and the second, after the disclosure of an officer's embezzlement of nearly 1.8 billion yuan, said it was a pity that the system made such a grafter.
The first called the mainland fighter pilot who defected to Taiwan for money "traitor", and the second called the Taiwan fighter pilot who defected to mainland for money "hero".
Classical double standards.
Back to Hong Kong.
The first said the Sino-British Joint Declaration was a historic document which no longer had legal validity, and the second said the government's handling during the protest was in accordance with the Declaration.
When I say it's a historic document, it's a historic document; When I say it's still valid, it's still valid.
"Appreciated" with the news of the visit to Taiwan of the US Secretary of Health and Human Services.
The report said the US shouldn't violate the Communiqué signed in 1982.
If the Declaration which was signed 36 years ago has become a historic document, why is the Communiqué which was signed 38 years ago still valid?
Shocking, the Hong Kong government dares to challenge China's territorial sovereignty! (This is because Hong Kong had a special trade status with the US, and the label will affect the CPC's foreign trade.)
Chapter 6: Freedom of Speech
In fact every chapter has to do with the freedom of speech. I give some cases.
The little pink wanted to satirize Twitter's terminating thousands of Chinese accounts, only to find that there are too many sensitive words, and finally used hyphens, pinyin and emoji.
Well, we can use punctuation marks, pinyin and emoji. That's freedom of speech!
The user posted "Capitalism is good" and it went through; then posted "Socialism is good" and it was censored.
So is it capitalism or socialism?
This is a political program called China Now, and the topic of this episode is the freedom of speech. Ironically, no comment is allowed.
This is China! (The program is called "这就是中国", which literally means "this is China".)
The little pink swore in Twitter, and used punctuation marks to circumvent censorship. Another user replied that there was no need to use marks, and some Weibo users satirized the little pink.
Little pinks keep censoring themselves even after coming to a platform of freedom. They are deservedly partisans of the CPC.
https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1tz411z7TC
Show this video (some American kids commented and mocked Trump), and perhaps many parodies of Trump. Ask: "What if some Chinese kids comment the leader of China?"
There is a elementary school girl, who participated in an event called "I write a letter to Grandpa Xi" and wrote that she hoped Xi would exercise and lose weight, saying "you don't need to be like Putin, and the figure of Obama is fine". And she was punished. (This was just a school event, and the letter would never be delivered to Xi, but she got punished.)
"And what if some Chinese kids mock the leader of China?"
The answer might be "You will be tracked and punished", and then we ask: "Is it illegal?"
——He insulted our President!
——What did he do?
——He repeated what President said!
Ask whether he or she knows Soviet jokes and share some that allude to the CPC.
For example:
——My wife has been going to cooking school for three years.
——She must really cook well by now!
——No, so far they've only got as far as the bit about the Twentieth CPSU Congress.
We say: "Let me tell a Chinese joke: in China, the funniest jokes are Soviet jokes."
Let him or her ponder for a while, and then explain: "If you replace the Soviet contents with corresponding Chinese contents, it's naturally fine. China's censorship forbids you from posting Chinese jokes, but posting Soviet jokes is allowed, so in China, the funniest jokes are Soviet jokes."
Conclusion
Ask: "Don't you feel the CPC is darker than you thought?"
Whatever the answer is, we take a step backward: "There's no political organization that has no spot. If a country only did 'righteous' deeds, then many things would be impossible. No government is always righteous, but is there other government that keeps claiming to be great, glorious and righteous?" (Of course I've disregarded countries like North Korea.)
This is the most important part: "Whether a political system is good can be reflected to some extent by whether it's law governing government or government governing law. As for the former, no matter what troublesome situation law gets government in, as long as the people think of law as correct, government must act according to law; As for the latter, as long as government pleases, law can be amended arbitrarily. A good political system doesn't entail everyone's participation, and ensures that everyone is able to enjoy political rights. It's fine if you don't care about politics, but there are times when you need politics. However, current political situation in China cannot guarantee the satisfaction of your needs. I give an improper metaphor: you seldom use your toes, but does it mean it's OK to cut off them and give them to the country? For the same reason, there are some political rights that you seldom use, but it doesn't mean your country is able to violate them." (One at a time)
Then we can give some suggestions: "Try put yourself in others' shoes. When you see the government is hyping something up, think for a while whether there are defects; When you see some problems are revealed in foreign countries, think for a while whether China is beset by the same problems. After all, correct your mistake if there is one, and keep going if not."
A final suggestion: "You can try to wake up people around you. An increasing number of people knowing the truth will contribute to the collapse of this regime. But anyhow, please stay safe."
Notes:
1. Although it progresses step by step, it might still be hard to understand for those brainwashed. We should be flexible according to real situation, and extra info could be provided to make it more persuasive.
2. We just wake them up, and it would be good to do some relevant discussion and truth sharing with them now and then. I recommend to get inspiration from "Floppy News".
3. It would help if we use some funny emoji during the process.
4. It would be great if we recommend a VPN.
5. If they ask "Aren't you afraid?" during the process, we can rebut: "When you say it, you should've realized whose fault it is."
Above is the procedure I theorized. Any criticism is welcomed. I also hope you can share your experience so that we can learn from each other. As I said at the end: "An increasing number of people knowing the truth will contribute to the collapse of this regime."
(The original text aims to construct a systematic procedure in order to lead to the defection of people inside the Wall. I translate it in hope of helping English readers have a better understanding of the ridiculousness of the CPC.)
(The title is a neta to the famous On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies, and because the web page is based on electronics, it won't hurt to call it Electrodynamics.)
Above all, to make people inside the Wall know the truth, it's unwise to bombard them with those jaw-dropping things. People inside the Wall are affected more or less by brainwashing imposed by the CPC, and consequently they might hold an aversion to those things. So if we imposed our will on them, chances are that it would be counterproductive. I recommend we begin with trifles, which are irrational. Then they might have an urge for more, and it would be our chance to guide them, provoke their thought and render them willing to explore the truth.
Chapter 1: The Search Engines
I'd like to start with the search engines. Ask: "How do you think a good search engine is supposed to be? What results do you expect to get from a good search engine?"
The answer might be "comprehensive" and stuff, or, if he or she is discreet, "it depends on the content you search for". Anyway, goad him or her into the latter (through, say, answering it yourself). Make sure he or she bears it in mind.
Let him or her open a browser (for better effect I recommend a computer browser) and search for "冠冕堂皇" using a censored search engine (As a matter of fact, every engine available within the Wall is censored. It's OK if you like other idioms. I choose this one to satirize the CPC).
This is the result layout of Baidu. Please notice that the results are almost about the meaning, and that there are relative contents displayed at the right and the bottom of the page.
Ask: "Are the results almost about the meaning? Do they live up to your expectations? Look at the left and the bottom, are there relative contents?" (One at a time)
And sum up: "Is this what it's like to search for an idiom?"
All the answers are supposed to be positive.
Then let him or her search for "通商宽农" (or other idioms that Xi Jinping mispronounced).
This time the results are all about Xi's citation of the idiom.
Ask: "Do the results live up to your expectations?"
Remind him or her that the number of results is extremely small, and that there are no contents at the right and the bottom. He or she will realize something is amiss. So we proceed: "When we search for an idiom, we basically want to know its meaning. Even if it is cited by Xi, the results about the meaning shouldn't be blocked."
Next, the autocorrection function. Let him or her search for "吉成思汗" (the proper name is "成吉思汗").
Above all results reads "results for '成吉思汗' are displayed".
Remind him or her that the search engine has autocorrected the misspelling, that the results are OK, and that there are contents at the right and the bottom. Let him or her search for "格萨尔王" and take a quick look at the web page (lest he or she doesn't know this person). Then search for "萨格尔王". It will suffice to let him or her make a comparison.
Ask: "Are these results reasonable?"
On getting the answer, we can tell him or her the reason: "Xi in his speech mispronounced '通商宽农' as '通商宽衣', '格萨尔王' as '萨格尔王'. It's commonplace to mispronounce something, and few will care about it, but the CPC is determined to censor these results." (We can mention that Trump mispronounced a place name and the video was uploaded by the CPC on Bilibili, the Chinese counterpart of YouTube.)
Chapter 2: The Amendment of the Constitution
A report on the fact that Russia was going to hold a referendum on the amendment of the Constitution.
Show the image, with the caption "The Xinhua News Agency dare report?"
If he or she feels puzzled, ask: "How did the CPC amend the Constitution in 2018?"
Mention that the amendment in 1982 aimed to prevent one-party authoritarianism and life tenures, and that in 2018 the CPC wrote its regime into the Constitution and removed the limitation that the President shall serve no more than two consecutive terms.
"The elected delegates voted." should be the answer. Then ask: "Whom do the delegates represent?"
So-called "the people" or "the citizens". Ask: "Is any delegate really voted by the people? Or let me rephrase it. Have you ever heard that your neighborhood is electing delegates?"
Then we get to the point. Of course, he or she might be discreet enough to say: "We seldom have encounters with the delegates. As a result, we have to rely on the mass media to gain info. Then media manipulation will cause unfairness."
Rebut: "How could the people you seldom have encounters with represent you?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bquXjhUN0U
Show him or her this video (The VOA interviewed some delegates in 2018 on their viewpoints on the amendment. The delegates equivocated, digressed or pretended not to hear).
"So it is stutterers, mutes, and deaf people that represent you!"
Ding Zhen is a Tibetan boy with little schooling, who was hyped up to divert the public attention. At that time, he dominated the top news everyday and was elected local delegate.
"Oh, plus illiterates."
If further discussion on this aspect is necessary, then feel free to do it yourself, because we've gain the advantage. We can "appreciate" some bills proposed by the delegates that "represent the will of the people" (they are available online even within the Wall, so I won't provide relevant materials here).
Many people hold the attitude: "I'm fine with anything so long as it's good." Then we can finish the sentence: "Which means I don't care about who the public servants are, I only care about whether them do well."
We continue: "If they do well, they keep serving the people, and what if not?"
The most reasonable answer should be "to replace them". We fill him or her in on Han Kuo-yu, who was the former Mayor of Kaohsiung and was recalled by a city vote. Some mainland netizens were surprised at the fact that a mayor could be recalled by the people. Their surprise hinted that it was believed that no officer in mainland could be recalled by the people.
The reason is plain: the appointment and removal power is in the hands of those in higher places. We take a look at how those people exert the power.
On the one hand, when some accidents occurred, they immediately recalled involved subordinates without giving them any chance to salvage the situation. "Replacing the responsible people and finding ways to settle the problem, which is of top priority? Did the problem occur just because of those people? As the local leadership, they are bound to be responsible, but should they take all the responsibility?" (One at a time)
Waiting for his or her response, and then: On the other hand, those who implemented foolish policies (like there mustn't be a single leaf on the ground) were never recalled. Obviously this problem was caused because of them. "Are you willing to have those who put forward such ridiculous policies serve the people?"
We can impress him or her more by: "The two kinds of people, which one should be recalled? And what's the truth? Have you ever heard that any officer who was responsible for some accident wasn't recalled? Have you ever heard that any officer who implemented foolish policies was recalled?"
With these as foundation, we get back to the amendment of the Constitution: "Referendum in Russia, and the so-called 'delegates' voting in China. The people were supposed to be acquainted with the details of the amendment. But have you ever seen any discussion on it? Why didn't everyone discuss such an important amendment? I'm not saying we need a referendum. I'm saying at least everyone has the right to discuss." (One at a time)
If we get the answer "Opinions vary from person to person, which causes chaos", rebut: "Then they insist on their own views and do whatever they please? Is this being answerable to the people?"
Guide him or she into admitting the necessity of discussions through, say, "what's the use of holding a congress?", "Are the views from several people suitable on a national scale?" Then ask: "It is true that opinions vary, so how should we treat these opinions, especially the opposing ones?"
Basically, it's "Listening to both sides and you'll be enlightened". We can further the discussion, or sum it up: "Even though the ultimate decision making power is in the hands of the minority, everyone is supposed to be able to at least express individual viewpoints and reasons. But what's the reality?"
At last, let him or her give an individual description of the Two Sessions. Tell him or her that the Two Sessions are actually "the Conference of the Parents of the International Students and the Congress of the Australian, American and Canadian Proprietors". With this term arises curiosity. Ask: "Which country's nationality do you think the children of high-ranking officials hold?"
Whatever his or her answer is, tell him or her: "Over 91% of the Central Committee membership have their family members hold foreign nationality (this is the data in 2010), and now almost every officer does so. That's why it's called the Conference of the Parents of the International Students."
Ask: "Why don't the officers disclose their incomes and assets?"
Whatever his or her answer is, tell him or her: "Because a large amount of their assets are abroad. They set up shell corporations and transfer assets, so they are able to run away in due course. That's why it's called the Congress of the Australian, American and Canadian Proprietors."
Chapter 3: Servility
Shenzhen stipulated that a child must have local household registration to go to local school, and many parents, most of whom were migrant workers, knelt at the entrance of the government building.
Show the image and ask: "Why did they kneel?"
We can delve into it. Just bear in mind that our trump is the fact that "the owners of the country" knelt to "the public servants".
Let him or her search for "周秀云" (a police officer trod on her hair for an hour, which led to her death). Make a comparison with George Floyd: "American officer killed a person, and some Americans protested, and some Chinese people supported them. Why didn't the Chinese protest after their fellow was killed?" (We can add one sentence: "So actually it is the US that you truly love!")
“Some say America emphasizes individual while China emphasizes community. Then why is it that American people who emphasize individual were willing to protest for someone with no connection to them, while Chinese people who emphasize community were indifferent toward their own fellow?”
After a little discussion, we can point out where the rub is: the US teaches its people freedom and democracy, although there exists discrimination, while China teaches its people to completely follow the CPC and creates an atmosphere of not caring about others.
Then we deal with the government's response: "In June, 2020, Trump threatened to resort to military forces to suppress the protests, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of China strongly condemned it. Although Trump never really did it, if he had, we should've been proud. We always hear that in some aspects the US has a several-decade advantage over China, but we should've said that China had a several-decade advantage over the US this time."
Because we adopted a teasing tone, he or she might be curious and less resistant when it comes to 1989. Of course no need to disclose details here. We can say: "In short, the CPC used its army to suppress the protests, causing many injuries and deaths. I in fact wanted to see how China's media would've reported on Trump's suppression."
Let him or her improvise, and we just state our view: "I think the CPC would've asked the media to keep a low profile. Look. What if the whole nation knew by accident that their party had done it before?"
Also, we make a comparison: "Trump was risking his career when saying it. It was months before the election. If he had dared to suppress the people, the people would've voted him down. (And as a matter of fact he was voted down. We don't discuss fraud here.) However, Li Peng, the former Premier, began his ministry in 1987, directed the army to crush the protests in 1989, and ensured his position until 1998, when he was elected Chairman of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress. He finally retired in 2003." (One at a time)
Chapter 4: Hong Kong
The People's Daily and the Global Times released this image. It reads "This is a war between maintaining rule of law in Hong Kong and trampling it; This is a war between maintaining prosperity and stability in Hong Kong and destroying them; This is a war between maintaining 'One Country, Two System' and annihilating it."
Show the image, with the caption "I curse myself".
Ask: 2020-1997=?
Waiting for his or her answer, and say: "National standard answer: 50."
Probably, he or she is either muted or puzzled. We explain: "The CPC once said Hong Kong' governance would remain unchanged for at least 50 years. Hong Kong would retain everything except foreign affairs. The national security law was passed in 2020, which deprived Hong Kong of its autonomy and demanded punishment for riot independentists."
Show the image, and explain: "These are the five demands the protesters put forward. Which one does entail independence? But the CPC just called them independentists."
Then we talk about reports: "Reports within the Wall were basically about 'rioters sabotaged public facilities and hurt others', but there are always some troublemakers in every protest. They are the minority."
We can spell it out. Out of 7 million Hong Kong people, about 2 million were protesting (the number was given by Hong Kong people, and we can deduce it: the CPC said the number was several hundred thousand, and the CPC tended to downplay it, so the real number is supposed to exceed 1 million). Then we ask: "If the majority of protesters had been rioters as the CPC had claimed, would Hong Kong have been what it's like now instead of having been plunged into total chaos? As a matter of fact, the rioters were the minority. The CPC only reported to gain an advantage, which caused the delusion that there were many rioters."
A report in 2020 that Hong Kong government would give 10,000 yuan to every major citizen. One netizen commented: "You think of them as rubbish, and they think of you as slaves."
People commenting have helped us say it. (Please forgive me for not translating all comments.)
Chapter 5: Shards of Info
As I've said, the CPC only reports to gain an advantage. As a result, a lot of pieces of news are totally OK if you read them separately, but are ridiculous if you read them together. I doubt that the brainwashed little pinks are able to logically find connections between different reports. I give several cases.
On May 29, Li Keqiang said that 6 hundred million people had a monthly income of only 1,000 yuan; On July 24, the Director of the National Bureau of Statistics said that the goal of moderate prosperity had been basically achieved.
It only took two months from 6 hundred million people with 1,000 yuan a month to moderate prosperity, Amazing China! (In fact, by May, 2021, the CPC hasn't officially announced the realization of moderate prosperity.)
In June, 2020, when another outbreak hit a market in Beijing, the media at first said it is caused by salmon, and even put the news of terrible foreign salmon breeding on the top of the hot news.
Please notice the top news at the right. The CPC's handling was subtle. All reports were about the horrible breeding conditions, and none ever said salmon contained viruses. Then the netizens would say what the CPC wanted to say.
But several days later.
The report said that over 30% of confirmed cases had connection with the beef and lamb section.
Hey, salmon, why don't you confess?
Two more pieces of news concerning the outbreak.
The first said all indigenous cases were in Beijing, and the second said a county in Xiong'an (located in Hebei, which surrounds Beijing) was locked down.
If all the cases were in Beijing, why was a county in Hebei locked down? It would be more reasonable for Hebei to enhance entry and exit management.
And the vaccines.
The first said Chinese vaccines would be free globally, and the second said it would take less than 1,000 yuan for Chinese people to get vaccinated.
Free globally (excluding China). It is true that at last it became free nationwide, but the CPC has more ways to make profits (say, massive nucleic acid testing). By the way, the phase-3 results of all other vaccines have been published in peer-reviewed academic journals, while none of Chinese vaccine does so. Also, the CPC suggests not to do antibody testing after vaccination, so the real efficacy of Chinese vaccine is questionable.
Hu Xijin's flopping speech. (I don't know what the adjective should be. The meaning is to fail because of accident or contradiction. It's "翻车" in Chinese.)
The first said China's asset declaration system was so powerful that it was very hard to conceal one's assets deliberately, and the second, after the disclosure of an officer's embezzlement of nearly 1.8 billion yuan, said it was a pity that the system made such a grafter.
The first called the mainland fighter pilot who defected to Taiwan for money "traitor", and the second called the Taiwan fighter pilot who defected to mainland for money "hero".
Classical double standards.
Back to Hong Kong.
The first said the Sino-British Joint Declaration was a historic document which no longer had legal validity, and the second said the government's handling during the protest was in accordance with the Declaration.
When I say it's a historic document, it's a historic document; When I say it's still valid, it's still valid.
"Appreciated" with the news of the visit to Taiwan of the US Secretary of Health and Human Services.
The report said the US shouldn't violate the Communiqué signed in 1982.
If the Declaration which was signed 36 years ago has become a historic document, why is the Communiqué which was signed 38 years ago still valid?
Shocking, the Hong Kong government dares to challenge China's territorial sovereignty! (This is because Hong Kong had a special trade status with the US, and the label will affect the CPC's foreign trade.)
Chapter 6: Freedom of Speech
In fact every chapter has to do with the freedom of speech. I give some cases.
The little pink wanted to satirize Twitter's terminating thousands of Chinese accounts, only to find that there are too many sensitive words, and finally used hyphens, pinyin and emoji.
Well, we can use punctuation marks, pinyin and emoji. That's freedom of speech!
The user posted "Capitalism is good" and it went through; then posted "Socialism is good" and it was censored.
So is it capitalism or socialism?
This is a political program called China Now, and the topic of this episode is the freedom of speech. Ironically, no comment is allowed.
This is China! (The program is called "这就是中国", which literally means "this is China".)
The little pink swore in Twitter, and used punctuation marks to circumvent censorship. Another user replied that there was no need to use marks, and some Weibo users satirized the little pink.
Little pinks keep censoring themselves even after coming to a platform of freedom. They are deservedly partisans of the CPC.
https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1tz411z7TC
Show this video (some American kids commented and mocked Trump), and perhaps many parodies of Trump. Ask: "What if some Chinese kids comment the leader of China?"
There is a elementary school girl, who participated in an event called "I write a letter to Grandpa Xi" and wrote that she hoped Xi would exercise and lose weight, saying "you don't need to be like Putin, and the figure of Obama is fine". And she was punished. (This was just a school event, and the letter would never be delivered to Xi, but she got punished.)
"And what if some Chinese kids mock the leader of China?"
The answer might be "You will be tracked and punished", and then we ask: "Is it illegal?"
——He insulted our President!
——What did he do?
——He repeated what President said!
Ask whether he or she knows Soviet jokes and share some that allude to the CPC.
For example:
——My wife has been going to cooking school for three years.
——She must really cook well by now!
——No, so far they've only got as far as the bit about the Twentieth CPSU Congress.
We say: "Let me tell a Chinese joke: in China, the funniest jokes are Soviet jokes."
Let him or her ponder for a while, and then explain: "If you replace the Soviet contents with corresponding Chinese contents, it's naturally fine. China's censorship forbids you from posting Chinese jokes, but posting Soviet jokes is allowed, so in China, the funniest jokes are Soviet jokes."
Conclusion
Ask: "Don't you feel the CPC is darker than you thought?"
Whatever the answer is, we take a step backward: "There's no political organization that has no spot. If a country only did 'righteous' deeds, then many things would be impossible. No government is always righteous, but is there other government that keeps claiming to be great, glorious and righteous?" (Of course I've disregarded countries like North Korea.)
This is the most important part: "Whether a political system is good can be reflected to some extent by whether it's law governing government or government governing law. As for the former, no matter what troublesome situation law gets government in, as long as the people think of law as correct, government must act according to law; As for the latter, as long as government pleases, law can be amended arbitrarily. A good political system doesn't entail everyone's participation, and ensures that everyone is able to enjoy political rights. It's fine if you don't care about politics, but there are times when you need politics. However, current political situation in China cannot guarantee the satisfaction of your needs. I give an improper metaphor: you seldom use your toes, but does it mean it's OK to cut off them and give them to the country? For the same reason, there are some political rights that you seldom use, but it doesn't mean your country is able to violate them." (One at a time)
Then we can give some suggestions: "Try put yourself in others' shoes. When you see the government is hyping something up, think for a while whether there are defects; When you see some problems are revealed in foreign countries, think for a while whether China is beset by the same problems. After all, correct your mistake if there is one, and keep going if not."
A final suggestion: "You can try to wake up people around you. An increasing number of people knowing the truth will contribute to the collapse of this regime. But anyhow, please stay safe."
Notes:
1. Although it progresses step by step, it might still be hard to understand for those brainwashed. We should be flexible according to real situation, and extra info could be provided to make it more persuasive.
2. We just wake them up, and it would be good to do some relevant discussion and truth sharing with them now and then. I recommend to get inspiration from "Floppy News".
3. It would help if we use some funny emoji during the process.
4. It would be great if we recommend a VPN.
5. If they ask "Aren't you afraid?" during the process, we can rebut: "When you say it, you should've realized whose fault it is."
Above is the procedure I theorized. Any criticism is welcomed. I also hope you can share your experience so that we can learn from each other. As I said at the end: "An increasing number of people knowing the truth will contribute to the collapse of this regime."
